Warren certainly did her best to scalp Bloomberg, but will it result in the end the same as Harris’s attack on Biden.
12
Excellent, excellent column.
Personally I didn’t find Las Vegas’ debate a winnable hand for the democrats. Who won? - the guy who wasn’t there. Until that night, I thought that beating Trump was THE primary goal of the Democratic candidates – I was wrong. There are too many egos. IMHO- their focus – the one which blinds their actions is to win the candidacy – no matter what – no matter its cost, even if that means Trump winning again…there will be plenty of excuses and blames to throw to the fan.
I would argue the Biden-Sanders or a Biden Warren tickets would be good on. I don’t know how a Sanders–Warren will play – for many it would be a dream team but this is neither a basketball game nor a court of law.
USA is still not mature enough for a gay President having a First Gentleman so Buttigieg, for now, is no real contest. Remember -racism and homophobia had a face lift this past three years.
But – and a big but, in 2008, Obama was a black, unknown Senator from Illinois – one consonant away from the name of the most wanted and hated terrorist in the world. He was running against no other than Hillary Clinton. His “electable quotient” was immeasurable. And again – a big but, that was 2008 BT (Before Trump)
How will all play out? I won’t bet for now.
9
Yes the debate convinced democrats that not one of the candidates is fit to be president ,so why not stick with Trump. It is a sad lot old men pushing 80 ,a socialist and a school mom looking to lecture us about all the plans she could get never get thru a gop senate.
10
Really wish the NYT would cease shredding the people we need to save our democracy and instead work to assist in unifying their readers. I think "The Press" knows that they share responsibility for what happened in 2016. So sad to watch journalists again nit-pick, malign, and criticize the people risking everything to lead us.
Once again, in an effort to be rigorously honest "The Press" is pulverizing every word, every minute, every sentence into such a mush that no one will be electable.
33
I think this is up to black people. We live in a time of deep, deep ignorance. Nobody votes for Trump because they believe he was his class' valedictorian. I am a Trekkie. I was fixated with Next Generation and laughed at the Ferengi, assuming we all one day would be like Jean Luc. That was the 90s when Clinton was running a surplus and we were in the middle of a tech bubble. Today, the Ferengi have taken over the White House. Grubby low grabbing behavior is cool and epidemic and Bloomberg is in no way the answer. Are enough black primary voters naive enough to assume that ignorant, unprincipled greed is the solution to Dr. King's dream? Next stop: Ferenginar???
7
Any candidate that resorts to personal attacks to advance their cause diminishes only themselves.
22
Clearly, Mike Bloomberg should have telephoned Prince Andrew before the debate. He could have used some coaching.
9
So grateful Krugman can let me know who won the debate. We benighted readers so need to be told what to think.
8
Bloomberg is the only one who can beat Trump.
26
That was a $400 million dollar beat down, how smart can the guy be? When he left office in 2013, not on3 of 5he 153 NYC unions had a contract. Mini Mike is a fake Trump, one that could care less about the people
Warren has been a fraud for years, fake. Which leaves two angry old men, a small city Mayor and what’s her name.
Meanwhile Trump can round up 25,000 screaming fans like a Rock Star, anywhere, anytime
It’s over
7
Great! Thank you Paul Krugman for providing some real insight. (Contrast this with Brooks’ NYT opinion today.)
Maybe this opinion is really a letter to Elizabeth Warren. It’s not too late. She should straighten out her message and separate herself from Bernie.
22
If only the Times didn't feel the need to dilute your message by surrounding you with the likes of Stephens, Friedman, and Bruni, you might actually be able to talk some sense into people. Well said, as usual.
6
Ohhh Elizabeth...Somehow, I want to see you in Wonder Woman costume, forcefully bringing-forth your credible programs in the simplistic narrative so that all may comprehend.
Instead...I see my 9th Grade Civic's teacher presenting plans only a select few will remember.
There is an important position for you, after November, but not as our President !
9
Krugman continues to educate us. Thank you.
9
Finally, ,Paul, a column that isn't a predictable screed. Thanks much. Please keep up the refreshingly good work.
9
Bloomberg and his ilk are parasites.
The speculation that makes them rich contributes as much to a better world as playing roulette in Vegas. Like if you have a high tech invention that lets you see irregularites in the wheel, so you can predict where the ball will fall, and win billions.
Does that contribute anything? Nope. 100% parasitical.
7
Since his BBC-radio interview last week, while in England, and in this and his previous columns, Paul Krugman starts more and more to sound like Marcus Porcius Cato, also known as Cato The Censor, or Cato The Elder, (born 234 bc, Tusculum, Latium [Italy]—died 149).Cato was famous if not legendary for ending all his speeches in the Roman Senate with the same repetitive line:" Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" Wich means losely translated from Latin:"I am of the opinion, by the way, that Carthage has to be destroyed". Carthage was a Phoenician city of trade and an unwelcome competitor to Rome. Krugman has started Cato's game with Bernie's 'Medicare for All' and will keep mentioning it as unrealistic and impossible "to be enacted, no matter which Democrat wins the election". Because the US is not ready for this yet. Because the sitting President can basically get away with creating a $1.5 trillion debt with his Tax Law and Bernie Sanders' MFA is unrealistic cause he cannot show the numbers how to get it financed. Sorry Paul Krugman, but that is a shameless unethical debating trick that should not be pulled anymore by now, and definitely not by you who knows how many times the feasibility and savings have been calculated by various scientific parties and think tanks regarding the Single Payer Program. So I sense a huge irrational aspect in the repetitive and unstoppable pejorative connotations Bernie's Medicare for All need to receive from you in Cato-style.
7
I just want to say today how purely pathetic the debate format is .
What a travesty, that the most powerful office in the world is left to sound bites, potemkin village idiot acting, kabuki theatre criticism from feckless media personalities. I will pay attention to debates that offer this format : 15 minute answers to multipart questions, debaters yield the time they cannot use, and the answers are subject to follow up questions. I want the same sort of analysis from the inflated egos that seek ultimate power in this world ( the presidency) that any student in a good graduate school would expect from a professorin any discipline. I would like a political leader who can think and then talk in coherent sentences that become, sometimes, paragraphs of thematically consistent thought. If that is too much to ask, then perhaps we as a nation have become too stupid to lead, let alone continue.
8
Warren for President. Period.
15
This is an embarrassing piece of terrible journalism by Krugman. He glorifies robber barons of a bygone era who built "real" things while tearing down Bloomberg whose terminals actually brought financial information to the finger tips of people who needed them. Really. Let's get some facts straight. The terminals are used for much more than just trading. There is a wealth of market data and fundamental and technical analysis tools that help all market participants (pensions, endowments, corporate treasurers, agricultural hedgers, money managers AND banks) with their analysis. That the terminal is just a tool for bank traders to manipulate markets is grossly misinformed and silly. And no one forces anyone to pay $24K per year for the terminal. If you do not want it, just say NO and try something else that is less expensive and perhaps not as good. The choice is yours.
13
Krugman is a theorist lost in his books. He has no idea about the real economy.
5
"She was raked over the coals..." No! No! No! Raking over the coals is something augurs do to try to find signs by which to predict the future. Is it possible she was hauled over the carpet?
1
Thanks to Paul Krugman (my favorite opinion writer) for highlighting what I find most appealing about my favorite candidate!
6
Why isn’t anyone bringing up Bloomberg’s businesses which would create real conflicts of interest if he were president?? Trump has no problem right now in profiting from his position, but Bloomberg’s situation would be even more problematic.
I wish you would write a column on that alone.
6
The story of Elizabeth Warren points to the lingering sexism in the US. She is forced to provide details on paying for her healthcare plan, while Sanders and the rest skate by with ludicrous claims. She makes a plausible financial case for the plan, and is still raked over the coals. Still nothing as detailed from "the boys." Beware the double standards.
26
@Sara C Excellent, Sara. You are so right!
10
Simply stated there are parasites and producers. Producers can be true capitalists who enjoy and succeed in a competitive environment and those who create real or virtual monopolies therefore not truly capitalists. The former billionaire producers are great and will be tax heavily. Then there are global enterprises who have self-interest not tied to the U.S., though they enjoy U.S. societies tax paid infrastructure and support. As respects universal healthcare(UHC), it's an important and practical promise not to shed but needing an incremental pursuit. Cost of UHC can't be accurately computed but in general it is current cost minus waste and inefficiency plus increased productivity, reduced cost of desperation including crime and jail, mental health negative actions including active shooters plus increased mobility including resulting value of innovation. It is likely to save cost not increase it. Proof of concept-Bloomberg, as CEO of a business with many employees knows, as Gov Romney did, that all larger enterprises eliminate insurance companies in the delivery of healthcare to employees. They provide high quality care to maximize employee productivity, to better compete for talent without unnecessary frictional cost of insurers. Countries with UHC have better quality, lower cost, happier populations and more HC jobs. UHC will create more hands on care jobs offsetting the inevitable loss of insurer and other processing jobs due to technology. Facts and logic endorse UHC
So, Bloomberg's business isn't good for the economy and Warren's efforts are? There are entrepreneurs who create jobs, which result in families buying homes and purchasing goods, corporate and individual taxes being paid, and a whole lot of downstream benefits. And, there are educators and politicians who don't create anything and feed off the federal and state taxpayer. Bloomberg is the former. Warren, Sanders, Biden, Mayor Pete and Amy were or are the latter. I would like to remind readers that Bloomberg doesn't have to run. He is doing so, because he's the only one who can beat Trump, he has experience dealing with many of the problems the country faces and has the track record of getting things done. During this week's debate, I loved watching Bloomberg's body language, especially when the other candidates were talking about the rich and blaming them for not paying their fair share of taxes. Bloomberg said something like "Congress sets the tax code. If you want the wealthy to pay more tax, change the tax code.
19
Warren would, I believe, be far and away the best president of any of the remaining candidates. I have been very disappointed in her campaign -- she allowed herself to be tied to the "far-left" Sanders and once the media latch onto a notion like that it is virtually impossible to get them to let it go. It's lazy "journalism" and the Times is as guilty of it as are other media entities.
Warren allowed people to believe that she would pose a threat to their private, employer-provided health insurance. All the candidate talk of "on day one" is largely rhetorical nonsense. "On day one" a new president will take the oath of office. He or she will not undo the massive damage that Republicans and Trump have done to this country. And in her first term, there is zero likelihood that Warren or any other Democrat is going to replace the ungodly mess that we call our health care system with a workable universal system. So, Warren lost countless potential supporters by allowing people to believe that she would do something she will have no power to do. That was a failure that should have gotten advisors fired.
"Medicare-for-All" is a poor model for universal coverage. Any system that allows people to go bankrupt without additional supplemental coverage is at best a starting point. Warren should have begun the arduous task of getting the abysmally informed electorate to understand why, in the future, every American will be better off when private insurance is a relic of the past.
8
I watched the entire debate, just as I've watched all the debates. I agree with many of the comments that Bloomberg did not do as terribly as the media portrayed it. In fact, I admired that Bloomberg refused to be drawn into protracted slinging and was able to keep his calm against the avalanches lobbed at him by everyone else. When it comes time to debate Trump, keeping a calm and unruffled demeanor should work well against a person who adores getting under everyone's skin.
17
Well, Bloomberg and Warren have a couple things in common -- they're both former Republicans who are very rich.
6
What on earth was Warren doing, mouthing stuff about Non-disclosure clauses?
Isn't she satisfied with getting rid of Al Franken? This is not what a leader does.
9
@Tara
I think you are confusing her with Kirsten Gillibrand.
6
As short as Bloomberg is, he has the ability to look down on Trump in one very large aspect. He is 10x richer.
Trump is actually not that important if we can keep the house and flip the senate. I would happily settle for a Bloomberg nomination to get his assets targeted on vulnerable and not so vulnerable Senate seats and a few more in the house.
Democrats can live with a Lame Duck Trump for 4 years - the Senate must flip. Bloomberg would be a one term president - he will be way past it in 2024 - by that time Trump could be a dim memory
5
Ok so it isn’t all in my head. Many, many people actually like Warren. Me, too. The media is failing us. Again. I’m as disappointed as a lifelong reader of the NYT as I felt in 2016.
21
“The financial sector... was pulling lots of capital and many smart people away from productive activities.” It is inexcusable for Krugman to make such a basic mistake. Capital markets are critical for our economy. Krugman (like many others) seems to think that producing goods and services directly is the only “productive” activity in the economy. But let me ask this: how do we decide which projects to take on, which factories to build, and which ideas to research? Who supplies the capital necessary to take on these projects? Let me give an example: Amazon took decades to become profitable. They got their funding from the capital markets that Krugman claims are not engaged in “productive activities.” How do we separate the next Amazon from the companies with no future? How do we make sure the next Amazon gets financing, but the failures do not? Our finance industry—and its very smart people who Krugman claims are not doing anything “productive”—will be making those tough decisions. Amazon, Google, Uber, Apple, and Microsoft are all American companies for a reason: our capital markets are the best in the world. Be careful what you wish for.
4
Why are we worried about the Russians interfering? We do an effective job of destroying our own best chances to unseat Trump, right here in these pages.
What is my evidence? Four articles in just today's NYT alone, raking up inconsequential, divisive, decoy issues designed to hobble the one candidate who could not only beat Trump, but who could then deal effectively with the (still Republican) Senate and actually govern.
7
Elizabeth Warren would make a great President. Her heart and mind are in a righteous place for the people of this country. She understands economics. Now, if we could only get all of the press to explain her like Dr. Krugman has she might have a chance. The press needs to get off all the gossip about what they think Elizabeth is doing "wrong" and focus on what Elizabeth is doing "right"!
13
Obviously Warren forgot what happened in the first debate when Kamala Harris viciously attacked Joe Biden. Long story short -- Harris lost support and is now gone while Joe Biden is still in the Democratic presidential race. I know Bloomberg was poorly prepared for the debate which made him an easy target for Warren's aggressive assault on his past business dealings. Anyhow Bloomberg 's name hasn't appeared on any ballots yet. Why don't we wait until Super Tuesday and then we'll see if Bloomberg's presidential campaign is for real or not? Time is still on Bloomberg's side and by Super Tuesday this horrible debate will just be an ugly memory.
7
Really Krugman says the most inane things sometimes. If Bloomberg hadn't introduced his terminal some one else would. Did introducing electronic trading of stocks actually add anything to the economy? Not really.
2
Two significant failings for Elizabeth Warren:
1. She is forever linked with promulgating broad social/economic programs (Medicare For All, free higher education for all, tuition debt forgiveness, etc). And any reputable economist will attest this movement will be an drag anchor for our present economy. Whether she or Bernie would be able to implement such programs as president is entirely moot -- because Trump will shout loudly that these are unnecessary socialist programs by social elitists who desire this country to become Denmark or Sweden. This November our economy will still seem just fine (it ain't) to many, many voters.
2. Warren can tack more to center -- but it's too late. If she receives the nomination, Trump will whip her for being a waffling, pandering hypocrite. "Pocahantas" with her ethnicity, a corporate legal gun in her 40s, her inconsistencies on big money campaign donors (did, didn't, did, didn't) and finally pandering to everyone & all to get votes.
I loathe Donald Trump. He's a corrosive, viral agent to our democracy. He must go. However, all that he'll attack Warren with has some truth and validity. I'll be kind to my neighbor: she's ambitious but not authentic.
Bloomberg 2020.
9
Warren eviscerated Mike Bloomberg in the debate’s opening minutes but I doubt she won over many voters in the process. Do white women like her? How about white men? Catholic voters? She’s going to need a lot of their votes to win the electoral college. She is very smart and her recent debate performance certainly shows she has done her homework but can she stand up to Trump as he stalks her like he did Clinton in the last debates?
1
Ms. Warren has amazing ideas and they could really help our country prosper.
Unfortunately, Ms. Warren is just a disaster when it comes to her own candidacy's political strategy. I'd love to support her with my vote, but I won't because I know she'll inexplicably find some way to hurt her own campaign with some stupid stunt that she thinks will work to her benefit, only to suffer another debacle of her own making.
Ms. Warren needs to fire each and everyone of her advisers. She desperately needs better minds when it comes to political strategy.
5
Elizabeth Warren 2020! The woman for all of us!
6
A boffo column by my candidate for outstanding public intellectual of his (and our) time. His replies to Reader Comments demonstrate the importance he attaches to the Dems getting it right.
2
What really matters
"Surging Dollar Reflects the Standout U.S. Economy"
NY Times, Feb 20, 2020
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-costs-alabama-hospital-sues-patient-to-collect-medical-debt-after-appendectomy/
This is the real fraud - charging poor people $37k for what is a $5k Medicare operation, then thanks to lobbyists and lawyers garnishing their wages and tax returns.
To keep Amazon and Apple propped up since they cannot seem to pay any taxes. US financialization.
6
Whatever columnists say about politics in America, it fundamentally about money.
3
Warren/Pete - Easy Peasy
1
Unfortunately the matter of increasing financialization will probably not come to the fore until the next financial crash and recession. At the moment in the media generally and the political establishment, finance is viewed as the driver of prosperity. The big tax cuts actually produced no significant improvement in the real economy but the money was used, along with money available because of the record low interest rates, to buy back corporate stock and raise the already high stock prices. This does increase the paper wealth of the more affluent who own stocks so things look good to them. The main economic policies of Trump and Republicans consisting of tax cuts, deregulation and low interest rates seem deliberately designed to inflate asset bubbles and increase the severity of the next crash. Democrats need to make this clear, but unfortunately predicting doom is not a winning political tactic.
Whoever is President when the next crash occurs will be in political trouble and it does not follow that public sentiment will turn to the left rather than the right - both Mussolini and Hitler were able to seize power largely because of economic downturns. Ideally politicians would recognize the inevitability of crashes under current financial laws and practice and explain what will have to be done.
5
Paul do you and David Brooks ever talk while writing your opinion pieces? "...it may have helped remind Democrats that corruption, fraud and the excesses of Wall Street in particular can be potent political issues — especially against a president who is both personally corrupt and so obviously a friend to fraudsters." (are the democrats not 'corruptible' or just the republicans?)
David's point of view: " Democratic debate is that Sanders is the only candidate telling a successful myth. "
My question to the both of you is who is telling the more successful myth today here at the NY Times?
1
@Kerm
Krugman has stated in the past that all the NYT columnists work independently of each other. I remember that Krugman and Brooks once produced "dueling op-eds" on the same day taking exactly opposite opinions on the same issue, with no idea in advance what the other was writing about.
" ... so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins ... "
How hubris and inaccurate is that? Four years ago Medicare for all was a joke. Today it is being touted by numerous presidential candidates because voters simply want it. Take a poll. Maybe not in your lifetime PK, but it is coming and the hubris NYTs can't stop it.
5
What matters is who do you support for the Oval Office the socialist or the capitalist.
Liberals want what they don’t truly understand.
Google the cons of socialist medicine if you really want to understand it. Forgiveness of college debt. Warren could care less that others saved, sacrificed, and worked to pay theirs off. What escapes liberals is the fact that nothing is truly free someone must pay the price.
4
I'm tired of people saying that Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. All of the candidates are using money to buy the same thing. Influence. They all spend money on tv ads, staff in different states, airfare around the USA, etc... Most of the candidates are asking other people or organizations to fund their candidacy. Bloomberg has his own money. There are many millionaires and almost millionaires who earn their money off the backs of perhaps sketchy situations. Bloomberg didn't rob a bank , sell crack on the corner or have to be beholden to financial supporters for his campaign. With all of Bloomberg's past issues, I support him. I want to win the White House, Senate and keep the house. We need to vote for someone who can win instead of someone who can just holler and scream.
8
Paul Krugman is an excellent economist and I love him for his insight. But he doesn't see the future of politics. Our current political power structure, which is what Krugman is most familiar with, is unsustainable. The up-and-coming generation knows that and is prepared to face the new politics head-on. Bernie Sanders is most prepared to lead them there.
3
I’m surprised Warren’s campaign hasn’t done a better job touting her success with the agency she created after the 2008 economic meltdown. Her work there is an example of good governance for the people.
6
The truth is that a Congress that for the last 60 years has failed to tax for all the legislation it passes that needs funding, is a Congress that has failed to be responsible for the fiscal stability, and long term interests of the people. The current debt of this country is $23.337 trillion, and for the first time, the interest on that debt will be $500 billion this year, and more going forward. In 10 years, that is $5 trillion alone. So, the fact that the corona virus will be around for the whole year, and possibly next year as well, not unlike the 2 years that the Spanish flu lasted, it is going to affect the market in this country as well. We as voters will have to decide, who among the Democratic candidates understands that there might not be those in the world who will be willing to keep buying debt, but one which will be added to exponentially by half of the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Japan, and China own $2.3 trillion of our debt. They both are currently experiencing serious outbreaks due to the debt, such that Japan may have to cancel the summer Olympics in July. Bernie Sanders, Elisabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar have all been in Congress for a decade. The fiscal decisions they have made over the last decade are their responsibility, and also, what happens in the future, as members of Congress. Who understands the gravity of the financial moment, and is willing to act in the best way possible should be the person who is the elected.
2
I love this column and Professor Krugman is brilliant. However, just because we think a just fight is unwinnable, does that mean it should be abandoned? Is not a national election the right time to debate about what is right? I know that Professor Krugman believes that healthcare is a human right. And even the young Honduran mother fleeing violence in her hometown with her child, even they deserve care when they limp through our southern border. It is the right thing to do. Some progressive candidates might yell and lecture about systems that we cannot attain at once but that doesn't mean they don't also understand that gains in our system of government come incrementally. These candidates are just using their platform to build a stirring narrative. This creates passion and motivation. This wins elections.
1
"But maybe the Warren-Bloomberg confrontation will help refocus discussion away from so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins "
The Sanders and Warren zealots need to be reminded of this reality and everyone needs to be willing to support the eventual democratic nominee even if their preferred candidate does not prevail in the primary. Or you can risk the survival of our democracy thru 4 more years of Trump.
5
I'm glad to see Dr. Krugman talking about economic matters. That is, after all, his specialty and where he earned a Nobel Prize. I wish he'd do it more.
I'm more concerned that the best thing Dr. Krugman can think to say about Warren's health care proposal is that it has no chance of passing. That IS good news. But I'd prefer a candidate who had a better health care plan which we'd all be proud to see as law and work for its passge.
2
This assumes the Dems are interested in taking on the financial class. I didn't notice a whole lot of that under Obama. If there is any justice in the world the current debt-fueled bubble will burst before election day and Mr. Trump can take the responsibility for what He hath wrought.
1
Paul Krugman makes a good case for why Elizabeth Warren would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury. However, we need to have a president who is not just fixated on bringing down wrongdoers. The next president needs to be truly committed to improving access to affordable healthcare for all Americans, and committed to ensuring that college education does not leave young Americans in deep debt. Elizabeth Warren zig-zags towards and then away from social/socialistic programs that could change how college education and healthcare access impacts Americans. I want someone who will really try and that's not Warren.
2
The problem Warren has, is today's U Mass poll, for Mass. She's not winning her own state. Whereas Klobuchar again in a U Mass poll is winning her's convincingly. Krugman et al high minded elites only use data when it serves their narrative. Furthermore, unless the Democrats take the senate and hold the house, it will not matter which democrat is the next President, see Obama under McConnell and the tea party. Reality is a Senator from Mass. has no chance electorally. The moderates in the field, particularly Klobuchar are the only ones who may be able to squeeze out the electoral college and flip the senate, but that is a very tall ask in a solid economy.
3
Solid economy? How would we know? Wilbur Ross is head of Commerce. Commerce generates the numbers. This is a guy who lied about his worth trying to get on the Forbes list. And now this new joker coming in to be DoI. Leonard Cohen said it best, “things are going to slide slide in all directions won’t be nothing won’t be nothing you can measure anymore.“
4
Let me just add to the discussion by pointing out that Warren said Klobuchar's health care plan could fit on a Post It note. This was not only grossly inaccurate but also completely gratuitous.
In fact, Klobuchar's plan calls for a free public option to Obamacare, and in addition -- and alone of the candidates -- she proposes a large-scale expansion of home health care (an issue that confronts millions of Americans), as well as mental health improvements. Her plan also calls for lowering drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and also be allowing needed drugs to be imported from Europe and Canada.
Moreover, AK has discussed a matter of great importance to women, many of whom have been tossed out of hospitals within 24 hours of birthing. That happened to her, despite the fact that her new daughter was held back due to a breathing issue. She got Minnesota law changed to allow a woman 48 hours hospital recovery.
Yes, I know it is just politics. But Warren lost my support for this ridiculous bit of demagoguery.
4
@PaulB67 I agree, a real cheap shot at AK and PB clearly contrived. I expect those 2 to go after in the next debate starting with falsifying her application documents for various positions and admittances. She can claim her mama told her, but the vast majority of Americans will smell that a mile away.
2
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think outside forces have been undermining Warren's campaign. Her media disappearance after New Hampshire and her omission from a major poll were enough to make even an avid supporter like me question if I need to pick a new horse. With recent intelligence that Russia is interfering in the Democratic primary, it begins to make sense. Of course they would love Bernie to win because he is unlikely to draw the centrists and those afraid of Socialism. Trump would win that contest. She could wash the floor with Trump, and she'd be an excellent president.
6
I think the comment about Bloomberg terminals is completely off the mark. It is a pricing and information service that allows all market players access to the same information. I would be interested to know why this is bad. On another point, imagine he becomes President and the blind trust that holds the company sells it free of tax. That will be interesting.
1
Warren has practical experience and has taught economics. She has tracked the history of bankruptcy and consumer fraud. She might make a great Secretary of the Treasury or of Commerce.
Sanders is a pied piper trying to woo younger, inexperienced voters with his siren song of a grand socialist democracy. He should be honest and tell his supporters about the weaknesses and failures of some of Europe’s social democracies, starting with Great Britain. Sanders’s legislative track record is weak over many years. His votes against safer gun laws and against a bill that would have enabled victims to sue gun manufacturers is more revealing about his true beliefs as a politician than all of his talk of a single-payer health care system.
Of the six participants in Wednesday night’s Las Vegas “debate” Joe Biden remained the most reticent but he stated that he had practical experience advancing legislation for a better health care system and he also had moved the fight against cancer forward with more appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. And he is knowledgeable about foreign affairs, despite gaffes. He knows many of the players on the world stage. Why would we nominate a man like him with his practical political knowledge and experience when we can nominate myth spinners like Sanders. Or vote for the most corrupt myth spinner, Trump?
1
While Medicare For All isn’t politically practical at this point in time, not enough attention has been paid to the financial aspects of single payer. Pundits regularly dismiss the thirty plus trillion 10 year cost as unaffordable, yet ignore the expected several trillion dollars more than single payer that we will spend for medical care under our current system over that same 10 year period. It is well known that Americans spend way more for health care than other advanced countries with poorer outcomes. Single payer is eminently doable but it requires the will to deal with the dislocation of changing systems. Nonetheless, I would argue for strengthening the ACA first, then considering single payer later.
1
Relying heavily on propaganda, which is how I view ads, to choose a candidate, is dangerous. One candidate is blanketing the nation with ads because he has billions of dollars at his disposal. Actions speak louder than words-look at candidates record and behavior. In this regard, I believe Bernie, Warren, and Klobuchar standout. The saving grace about Bloomberg is that he stated he would spend a lot of money to support whoever the democratic nominee is in order to defeat Trump. I hope this comes to pass. And I hope that money is spent to engage citizens in our democracy: register voters now, get out the vote and prevent voter suppression so that we the people can win the Senate and Presidency, while retaining the House.
Mr. Krugman incorrectly blames Warrens fall in the polls as a result of her "trying to appease" supporters of Bernie Sanders when the opposite is true. Warrens support fell when she backpedaled on M4A which raised doubts on the left that Warren had sold out to the establishments Dems in exchange for favorable media coverage while at the same time her inability to frame her new M4A stance gave the media an opening to anoint Mayor Pete as their new media created champion.
1
'What we learned, in particular, was that as a presidential candidate, Michael Bloomberg is a great businessman — and that Elizabeth Warren remains a force to be reckoned with.'
I beg to differ. I don't think we learned anything about Bloomberg the business man except that he has a deplorable history when it comes to women at his companies. He spent the whole time defending his dismal record and rightly so. He's got a lot to answer for and particularly when it comes to women and people of color. Democracy is not a business but a process that does not answer to profits and bottom lines. He's a corporate socialist plain and simple.
1
Instead whining that Medicare for all won’t pass, how about getting behind the fight for ir?
I like PK, but the doom snd gloom seems like a self fulfilling prophecy.
The nation needs universal healthcare, and voters are more likely to get behind that than ideas about finance.
4
Being lectured about what matters, by a media outlet that just published an op-ed by the Afghan terrorist organization leader Haqqani (the Haqqani network...) is like being lectured on civility by Charlie Manson.
3
Someone needs to get all of these candidates in a room and remind them who the enemy is.
4
How about a Warren/Bloomberg ticket?
2
Actually democrats should be talking about three items...first, how they intend to beat Trump...then, how they’re going to get him out of the White House if he loses...and finally, how they’re going to plug the holes Trump has put in the republic. Forget this “on day one” nonsense. Getting back to normal is going to take several years...
6
Warren was very effective in the debate against Bloomberg because Bloomberg's high-priced ads have portrayed him a morally decent and caring philanthropist.
Trump has never pretended to be decent or caring. Therefore, attacks like this will not be effective against him.
For everything she says about him, he will fire back about the inconsistencies in her stories about her past and her waffling support for Medicare for All.
Likewise, Gandhi's tactics against the British Empire would never have worked if Hitler ruled India.
1
Folks should know that Warren is not the environment person she claims . She gave her daughter million of dollars of oil and gas stocks so she would look clean and flew on private planes at the donors expense . Is this someone we want ??- plus the middle of the country needs a centrist. And Bernie is a no no he made millions off the American Taxpayer - do we want a socialist behoove to a foreign government - who has many ties to Israel ? As a woman of the Jewish faith and A person born and raised in New York City- IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID! and Mike Bloomberg is the only one that really understands Money and given his millions can be clean about it . Did he harass woman - probably - he was raised at a time when this was thought to be a man's right - I am not saying it is good - But look at Biden- he belittles woman , Look at trump OMG , Look at Clinton,Look at LBJ, Look at JFK- in today's world their actions would be considered sexist and harassment but they got away with it and not one thogght any worse of them - Let's give Mike a chance - he has done a lot for People of color and minorities Stop and Frisk was a mistake -Are not we all entitled to mistakes- TRUMP has made about everyone in the book and is a bigot and a woman hater and makes nasty remarks and stoops so low as to communicate by tweets -
8
My manufacturing textbook has a cartoon of a stupid-looking business student saying "Hey, I don't wanna make things. I wanna make money." That was about 20 years ago. Things have gotten much worse since then.
2
So Bloomy is just a computerized Gordon Gekko.
I heard of a recent advertisement that juxtaposes inspiring statements from past American leaders with statements from Trump expressing his vulgarity and stupidity. The advertisements were anonymous but apparently paid for by Bloomberg.
The Democrats may hate Bloomberg's business background, but they need to learn from his marketing.
4
Trump supporters like to talk about what Trump has done. A few years into the Iraq war, Bush supporters liked to talk about what Bush had done. We're 4.5 trillion dollars down the road in expenditures related to the Iraq war. How many Bush supporters are wildly clapping for that war now as they did in 2005?
Millions and millions Germans adored Hitler. They loved him. They lauded him. He put them back to work. He created a booming economy. The German people couldn't get enough of him. In 1945, as Germans picked through the rubble of their great cities, were they cheering then?
There has been an astronomical rise in the Federal deficit since Trump became president as he cut taxes to enrich stock and property owners with untold riches both foreign and domestic. Will his supporters be cheering him 10 years from now when the next great financial calamity results from his stupid policies? Sure they will, because they'll blame the politicians who will have to clean up the mess he is setting up the U.S. for down the road.
One of the problems with limiting Presidents to two terms is that they don't face the consequences of failed policies. Up to 4 terms would be better in that regard. Perhaps, make the election requirements more stringent for a 4th term - require a President to get an absolute majority of 55% or 60% of the vote to win a 4th term. Over 16 years the benefits of good policies and the harms of bad policies will become evident
1
Well one thing is for sure the Dem's have damaged themselves to the point that King donald will off their heads on November 3, 2020. Four more dreary years of an imbecile leading the great unwashed.
Sad
2
Stop the insanity. I’m so mad I support this party. Don’t any of them get it? The slinging of old wrong doings is so ridiculous. Tell us your story, your goals. The rest is garbage. We are fighting a foe we never did before. Get your acts together. You are as bad as the republicans. Fight them, Trump not each other. I’m not watching anymore debates! Shame on you people.
9
Democrats kill themselves with every debate. they should be attacking Trump and pointing out his malfeasance. Everything else is pabulum.
4
Warren appears to need some Valium. She rants and raves, gasping for air between sentences. When listening to her, I’d like some Valium. We don’t need another fighter in the WhiteHouse.
Bloomberg is far more desirable as a candidate, regardless of the New York Times’ endorsements of Warren and Klobuchar.
7
@Florida Voter
I do notice her gasping for air. She would make a fine president, but this is a turn-off in the debates, which are only about image. Of course, Trump also breathes heavily, but when he complains there is a microphone "malfunction," the media and his followers give him a free pass.
1
I am constantly amazed at Krugman's clear-eyed analysis, particularly on the economy. It gives me hope that not all of the punditry is living in an ivory tower in Manhattan or DC. Yes, the financial industry commands way too much of our economy; shuffling papers and collecting fees is not productive work. Figuring out ways to add a few cents to consumers' monthly credit card or phone bill is not productive work. Designing arcane hedge fund strategies is not "innovative", it's deception and sometimes fraud. Buying companies and stripping them of assets, and killing jobs is counter productive (looking at YOU, Mitt).
And what the heck is up with all the pundits rushing around tamping down Warren's campaign? Sucking up to your paymaster versus actual analysis? She had a lackluster showing in New Hampshire and Iowa? Nothing burger supreme, with silly fries. She's far and away the best candidate, sorry to disappoint the Hillary bitterness out there, but as it turns out many people WILL vote for a woman for POTUS, just not THAT woman.
4
Who is the bigger con artist? Trump or Sanders? I would say Sanders is the bigger con artist. Why? Because, he convinced a large percentage of population for over two years something he can never ever accomplish. It is an outright lie and cheat to tell the people that he will bring structural changes to our healthcare system. Sanders is a better candidate than Trump because he is not as corrupt as Trump. Bloomberg is right when he said it is a fatal error to nominate Sanders. Elizabeth Warren who can actually accomplish something that has real effect on people sucked into Medicare for all nonsense in terms of realization. Of all the people, she should know better.
3
Your big concern about Sanders? That's rich. Sanders doesn't squander political capital, that's a meme you just pulled out of...thin air. He's been in political office for 50 years; such do not waste politcal capital. In the last 4 years he's created more political capital than all the other candidates put together by inspiring people with hope. His capital is the enthusiasm of his army of volunteers, his millions of donors, the millions that will vote him into office. He's earned that capital by giving that hope to Bloomberg's suckers, the folks working 3 jobs. Obama had capital like that. He wasted that capital sucking up to Bloomberg's customers. It worked out well for him, not so great for the folks dying with needles in their arms. I want to be helpful here, Paul...you really should study up on Sanders. Why don't you look him up in Wikipedia?
By the way, how about a prediction? A Sanders/Warren ticket looks pretty good to me. I think it will look pretty good to America.
2
Valid thinking, Mr. Krugman, but I would posit that the most compelling issue that would motivate Democratic voters to show up is the urgency of climate action. It also presents a perfect contrast between those who are worried and scared and those who don't give a damn. If framed as an investment that will churn the economy and create millions of jobs then it will put Republicans in a vulnerable position, caught between their carbon donors and doing the right thing.
1
>>corruption, fraud and the excesses of Wall Street in particular can be potent political issues…<<
Nonsense. Mr. Trump has filled the eight year long leadership vacuum created by his predecessor. Suggesting policy reforms a la Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will not defeat him. Direct personal attacks against him a la Bloomberg just might. Leadership is the issue, not policy.
“When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say 'Heil' to him, nor will they call him 'Führer' or 'Duce.' But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of 'O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!'" Dorothy Thompson, 1935
2
In my world, the vast explosions in wealth are largely from technology. Somebody should tell the far left wing populists like Mr. Krugman that in order to pay for their Medicare for all, free college for call, etc., they will have to suck up to Wall Street to raise the $.
2
Yup.
Learning about the Bloomberg Terminals was a "doi" moment for me; Thank you Dr. Krugman. I am getting fired up about Elizabeth Warren again and will again wear my Warren button--I was so proud to do that of last summer. She has got to restart and play to her strengths and know-how about the way we are getting screwed financially.
2
The health insurance industry is a $2.4 trillion segment of our GDP. When we pay our premiums, they don’t go into a lockbox awaiting our need for payouts for claims. Insurance companies invest these in the stock market and loan vehicles to make extra money in case of extra claims in the future. If we started paying Premiums to the government, this would suck money that builds American businesses out of the economy. Given Congress’ tendency to raid the social security trust fund, I wouldn’t trust them to leave these premiums untouched. Also, government has a fiduciary duty to invest in safe assets, such as interest bearing or bond accounts. This single payer plan overlooks our unique economic climate in the USA.
Those who don't want Sanders as the nominee should rally behind Warren.
The two are often treated as similar, but they actually aren't. They think very differently: Warren is a serious policymaker who thinks things through carefully, puts forwards plans that make sense, and hires smart, competent people. Sanders hasn't rethought any of his positions in decades, dodges all the hard questions about how to make it work, and surrounds himself with fantasists and lunatics.
History has shown us, time and again, that movements for big change only succeed when they have smart, competent leaders. Warren is that sort of leader. Sanders is not.
And we *need* big change. Our country is only going to become more and more unstable if middle class incomes continue to stagnate and inequality continues to rise. Moderates, if you don't want this country to fall apart, half-measures aren't going to save us. Warren, out of all the candidates, has by far the best understanding of what ails us and what needs to be done about it.
I am amazed at how many people say, when pressed, that they agree Warren is the best candidate, but they're reluctant to back her because they don't see others backing her.
If you agree that Warren is the best candidate on the merits, COME OUT OF THE CLOSET. Say loudly and proudly that you are for her. Speak the truth, and overcome madness with sanity. This is how we get the best possible president elected in 2020.
3
Dr. Krugman is right. I'd point out how "what matters" in financial reform matters in part because of the difference reform could make over time in the lives of those subject to intensive discrimination (meaning even more difference than it would make to a white male like me). It was this concentration on fairness that led Senator Warren to come with a plan showing how something like Medicare for All could be done. I think her biggest mistake was to back away from it as quickly as she did. Dr. Krugman is right that in the current state of the country, Senator Warren's plan couldn't get passed. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fair, that it shouldn't be put forward as the sort of thing that we ought to aim for if we ever can, even while we make more immediately realistic plans as well. Senator Warren's jumping back made it look a little as if she thought she had something to feel guilty about, which she didn't, or as if she didn't really believe in her plan, which I'm quite sure she did. The erasure phenomenon, as Dr. Krugman says, is real. I believe it came about because, as a very smart, very assertive woman with concrete plans, Senator Warren scares a lot of rich white men (and those who identify with them) even more than Senator Sanders does; probably a great deal more, and most of all when she got lots of coverage and seemed most electable. Mayor Bloomberg is an eraser, too.
2
As a Warren supporter, Bloomberg has a big asset: his billions With it he can threaten to primary any politician who is not willing to support his legislation. A conservative Repulican senator can be primaried with an even more conservafive Repubican who might not beat a well funded Democrat. And the same for a recalcitrant Democrat. All it takes is money, which Bloomberg has plenty of.
2
It would be my thought that Warren got jumped over her intelligent retrenchment on Medicare for All because a) she didn’t really explain that she’d been impractical, and folks needed to get real, and b) none of the Berniacs want to face up to St. Bernie’s fudging and fibbing on health plans, and found it easier to shout at a girl for the exact same problem.
Then too, the Saint et al—he’s not a politician, you know—just plain saw a political opening. And they beat up on her for votes.
Insightful column Dr. Krugman. I wasn't aware of how Bloomberg made his billions. I suppose that it will be difficult for him to regulate Wall Street when they have been his customers. However that association doesn't indicate that he might not be effective on Climate Change, Immigration and Health Care, issues that also matter a lot. More over I think he has the media skills to take on Trump. I don't think any of the other candidates do. Warren seems to me to far behind to get the nod but I do hope her skills and smarts are put to go use in a cabinet position or as a Wall Street regulator.
"But that all changed in the 1980s, largely thanks to financial deregulation."
Yes, thanks to the Reagan Revolution and its promise to get government off our backs. What many forget is that the current morass was predicted by those of us who saw through those policies. The result is that many middle class Americans now work twice as hard and don't have the standard of living that their parents had. Republicans believed the lies then, and they believe the lies of Trump now.
2
Your comments carry a heavy load on the wealthy elite, trying to justify their billionaire status that, you and I know, has been acquired by inequitable, if not corrupt, means, even if now they are trying to justify their wealth by given some of it back to society. Quite frankly, if these rich folks wouldn't have meddled in turbid businesses in making us poorer, there wouldn't be a need for their 'magnanimity' to begin with. In that sense, as the rich and powerful corporate world functions, with poor regulations and with no public supervision, their social distance from the poor would remain a huge obstacle to reverse the current status quo. To everybody's loss.
3
Just as a single payer medical care system will not win, so the best prepared Senator Warren won't win the election. Again, the question is, why do the American people reject what is in their best interest? Mainly because the medium rejects the clear message before it.
4
Democrats are scared, which is why they are fluttering around the candidates, drifting here and there. It's a natural outcome of uncertainty. The policy prescriptions don't mean much this time.
First and foremost in our minds is defeating Trump. And no matter how our "gut instinct" tells us to go, the truth is ANY candidate can beat Trump if Democrats really turn out to vote.
2
Prof Krugman, I'm disappointed to read of your tepid support for B. Sanders' Medicare-for-All proposal . You're assigning it a very low probability of enaction even when data emerges to show it will save $450 billion/yr in admin costs. So are Bernies minions just dreaming ? If we don't dream in America we will never discover the 'shining path' of liberation from medical capitalism.
3
“Data shows,” does it? Well, data is not maple syrup. You can’t just pour it on bad pancakes and get people to be happy.
The “data,” is actually pretty contradictory. There are studies that back you up—try citing one, but then you’ll have to read it—but also studies that say the opposite. And both the happy studies and Bernie are make some big, big guesses to get their “evidence.” Basically, they’re being just as insanely optimistic as any Trump budget.
And none of them are saying EXACTLY what the Big Plan is.
Oh, I know. You’ll pour the accusation of my being, “capitalist,” or “corporatist,” on everything I tell you. But those words are not blueberry syrup..
Thank you Professor Krugman. I am all in on Elizabeth Warren. She's exceptionally intelligent and a committed policy wonk. More importantly, the CFPB and her years in the Senate demonstrate an ability to effect material change through legislative action. Compare her legislative achievements to those of Bernie Sanders and you will quickly see who has the potential to get things done despite an obstructionist Senate. Finally, and MUCH more importantly, her performance in Nevada, and on repeated debate stages, demonstrates a unique ability to take down Donald Trump one-on-one. We have a misogynist president who, like most misogynists, is desperately afraid of strong, intelligent, aggressive women. Warren lacks the baggage Hillary Clinton carried like Marley's Ghost, and will draw over enough independents -- and the all-important suburban women -- who can knock our current wannabe monarch off of his gold-leafed throne.
7
Warren has the least amount of baggage of all of the candidates, she should be the nominee. trump will have far less to work with when it comes to tearing her down. And she will eviscerate him on a debate stage if he were to even agree to debate her.
5
The Dems should consider running a candidate who is not completely nuts. These folks are so out-there on the most important issues that there chances of becoming President are nil. Just a viewpoint from a serious vocational veteran of the political world.
1
The EU is generally to the left of America in everything political, yet "Every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance." (https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders) That Sanders and Warren are hellbent on dragging the U.S. somewhere tens of millions of its voters don't want to go - namely giving up their private medical insurance - is suicidal. Warren could easily be the frontrunner if not for this potentially fatal flaw in her campaign.
1
“Medicare will never be enacted” is written here by the same person who told us four years ago that Trump would never be our President. Mr. Krugman should take his own advice and stick to the things he actually knows about, being an Oracle not being one of them.
2
I don’t know about all this. The four out of top five wealthy people in the US are tech entrepreneurs and one is a person who is a legendary investor in things that are made and consumed by people for the significant part of his huge portfolio of companies. It is true that he owns a huge amount of the property and casualty insurance industry but that is an ancient business which I believe is not the type of financialization that Professor Krugman talking about. The rest of the top ten include the Waltons and probably the despicable Koch brothers. Not exactly arbitrage traders using Bloomberg screens.
I think the good professor’s indictment of Medicare for All, a standard on most of the civilized world including the wondrous Denmark that even his colleague David Brooks praised in his usual florid but sophomoric style here recently, is as problematic (if not outright false) as his description of the financialization of the United States economy.
Most likely this comment won’t see the light of day, but just in case, I will press the submit button.
3rd Try 22:22 NYC
And got the brilliant “something went wrong”. Surprise!
2
Though it is correct to point to financialization and fraud as a major cause of the misaligned economy, we also have to include the misalignment of the monetary system as part of this wrongly focused economy where inequality and its dire consequences is part and parcel of such unproductive economy.
When Nixon did away with the dollar-gold exchange standard in August 1970, the national monetary system did not find a system stability which consequently contributed to the present unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system. I think that economic historian Charles Kindleberger shows us the important of the monetary dimensions in his study of the forty financial crises over the last four hundred years and its relation to the financial and economic issues of the times.
In Verhagen 2012"The Tierra Solution: Resolving the Climate Crisis through Monetary Transformation" (www.timun.net))I have seminally presented the possibility of an international monetary system that is based on the carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person as a way to cope with the largest and even existential challenge of this century. An outstanding economist and climate activist commented on this Tierra global governance system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
" But it may have helped remind Democrats that corruption, fraud and the excesses of Wall Street in particular can be potent political issues — especially against a president who is both personally corrupt and so obviously a friend to fraudsters." Why can't the American public understand this? After three years of increasingly blatant corruption in the Trump administration this should be a "no-brainer", as they say. I'm simply gobsmacked at the continued support for this crew of con artists and sycophants. The country we are living in today is so far removed from the Obama presidency that it's hardly recognizable. If we want to return to some form of sanity as a country can we please elect someone who can actually get things done? For my money that is Elizabeth Warren. Get over the fact that she is a woman America. It's long past time for a woman president.
2
Paul--If you think Warren is good, why don't you come out and say that she should be the nominee. You pundits keep shying away from her. Get behind her!
2
Here's a kernel of truth that should be mentioned more often:
".....so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins"
Yup
1
Bernie is a self described "democratic socialist" but according to New York Times articles, not necessarily a democratic socialist. In actual fact Bernie supported the brutal dictatorships in Cuba, Nicaragua, and even the Soviet Union. That is the truth. Google it. Bernie is a socialist who also supports totalitarian socialism. In November would the GOP not bring that to light and publicist it?
Can the Democrats win with a candidate who praised Cuba, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union?
2
"Financialization and fraud" for the plutocrats and unlimited guns for the masses -- such are the twin pillars of freedom as far as Trumpites are concerned.
1
Quit stating that health care reform is unreasonable. Every developed country has a form of single payer system, And the American College of Physicians now calls for this reform in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As a physician, I say now is the time for health care reform. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2759531/american-college-physicians-endorsement-single-payer-reform-sea-change-medical
1
Bloomberg didn't fight back against Warren because she has fallen out of the top 4 already and he knows the one to beat is Bernie. So he saved his limited amount of firepower to cast doubt on his electability and how commie his ideas would be labeled in the general. Without a single debate he's already running just a bit behind Bernie and neck and neck with Biden. If Pete, Amy or Biden do poorly on super Tuesday and start to drop out he'll pick up their supporters. If one of them lead he'll probably throw his delegates to them. Warren lost this the day she chose to get into the Bernie bucket with compulsory government insurance rather than public option open to all. Splitting the 40% of the party that is true Lefty got her where she is.
1
I agree Warren had a great night. What I don't agree with is your insinuation that Medicare for All will never happen.
Are you not aware of the Yale Study that demonstrated that Medicare for All will save 450 billion annually and 68,000 lives.
Do you forget the number one cause for bankruptcy in this county is medical debt? Are you unaware of private equity owned ER's that present surprise bills to poor people.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/02/19/798894062/its-not-just-hospitals-that-are-quick-to-sue-patients-who-cant-pay.
I am confused and disappointed by your comments.
1
He probably forgot it because the number one cause of bankruptcy isn’t medical bills, and St. Bernie pulled that half million number out of his proverbial.
Interesting where you emphatically say wrt to Bloomberg’s business
“It’s an extremely profitable business. But is it good for the economy? No.”
It’s an ignorant comment:
1. Bloomberg’s platform provide enormous efficiency to an industry that has passed those costs reductions to retail investors and public pension plans. This is mathematically proven through publicly available best execution reports in the US and around the world. Maybe you should look.
2. What about the tens of thousands of high paying jobs Bloomberg created, aren’t they good for the economy?
3. What about Bloomberg news? Millions of people depend on it for vital investment information while outlets like the NYT Business section fights for relevance.
4. Don’t extremely profitable businesses pay a
Lot of income tax?
Efficiency through innovation while creating tens of thousands of jobs, delivering unbiased information and paying a ton in taxes - sounds like it’s pretty good for Economy to me.
Oh, and by the way the CFPB is useless vanity project, similar to this column.
1
"radical health care plan" - right, Paul. Those radical seniors on Medicare, radical veterans on the VA and oh, let's not forget those man the barricades Canadians, British and Swiss...
2
I can't see how the CFPB saved me a nickel. Neither Sanders or Warren have a snowball chance in hades to beat trump and Democrats are bound and determined to prove it.
1
Warren's credibility as a Trump opponent goes down with each headline grab she makes over Bloomberg.
So sad to see her leading a circular firing squad instead of inspiring American's to see their democracy.
1
Proven and trusted candidates.....Biden, Warren, are certainly diversified in their experience and are totally competent....After watching Mr Bloomberg i walked away very disappointed....So unnatural and awkward....i think the Team is Biden and Warren....i like that combination.....Clearly the voters on the dem side should like the balance and tenacity
1
@charles Yes, balance, tenacity, and diversity. However Biden needs to stop attacking Bernie and show he has a pair of brass ones to go after Trump. His continually going after Bernie is what is helping drag him down. If he would put the same energy in going after Trump and his ideas, then he would probably be leading.
Actually the Q is big picture...and not a definite delineation between Capitalism and Socialism. The Q is what sort of mix there will be, because, here and elsewhere, there is a whole lot of Socialism in the mix working, and working well, right now.
&, of course, both Socialism and Capitalism are spectrums within their definitions, from taco trucks to vertical/horizontal monopolies in one, from worker coops to command economies in the other (and, while Mike wants to paint - like Trump- all Socialism as Communism, most folks have seen the theoretically enticing idea of Dr Spock jockeying some Watson to the perfect Economy is unrealistic in a real human world).
No med4all...well, no building on ACA either. What ACA is becoming is a tax $ injection system to insurance Co.s bottom line, creating customers who would otherwise not be. Why is that tax cost not page 1? & once the Supremes 5 to 4 ACA unconstitutional the "subsidy" system will be all that is left.
Ms Warren's schtick is to play the Ms card. Go after DNIs, the Me Too bit. A glass ceiling thing that appeals to a certain, well off, tranche of (white) female. Other females look to $$$ concerns in making the weekly, monthly (then there are men, particularly minority).
Her et tu on Amy may solidify women vote for #3 in NV. But the campaign still arcs to two old men.
Bernie & Joe (#1 in SC).
1
OK, I,m getting a little tired of this so I won't attempt the educate the writer on the Bloomberg business model. Instead I will just try to give some ways to educate yourself. Bloomberg terminals don't sell because they give information “a few minutes earlier”. That would be illegal. They sell because they have a closed system “Bloomberg Chat” which means that you can only communicate with other large players, potential buyers and sellers, if you have a Bloomberg terminal. Ergo, Bloomberg is a monopolist. Please, this is getting tiresome. Please do your work before writing.
1
Senator Harris was hailed as a winner when she attacked Biden about school busing.The media cheered her on for being tough and strong.Soon after the media cheering her campaign and pol numbers collapsed. I expect this might happen to Warren.She is a nasty person a lying fake Indian, attacking Sanders of being anti-women and not telling the truth, not remembering that her children went to private school instead of public school and being fired in New Jersey for the sin of being pregnant.Her positions are changing with the wind and the hubris of being overly ambitious is her most prominent characteristic.She is the only one on that debate stage in Nevada I would not vote for.
4
I don't think Trump voters care a whit about any form of fraud.
See: last batch of pardons.
Getting away with fraud makes a person "smart". Right?
1
I hope the Democrats hurry and get their act together, on just the issues you raised. Because....
Word is the next honoree for the Presidential Medal of Freedom will be Gordon Gekko.
If only there were more American men mature enough to vote for such a capable, hardworking, big-hearted woman.
2
Having president who is both personally corrupt and so obviously a friend to fraudsters is not a flaw for the Republicans, it is a required feature.
While watching Elizabeth Warren take down Michael Bloomberg, I could envision her doing the exact same thing to Donald Trump!! I can’t wait to see it!
4
The Trump-Warren ticket is a shoo in to win the election in 2020.
What really matters is beating Trump.
Nothing else.
We can talk about everything else later.
2
Bloomberg should have know that Warren wants to kill our casino capitalism economy which made him a billionaire. He went into the lions den coming out a wounded lamb.
Often my opinions concerning lawyers and finance professionals are unpopular. Nevertheless, per Christian mythology, how many days after casting the money changers from the Temple was it before Christ was crucified? Four.
When at the pinnacle of power, they are the root of all evil.
Tax unrealized capital gains.
"will help refocus discussion away from so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins"
So let's focus on what you are saying. Warren's primary policy objective of "Medicare for ALL" has no chance of passing. Sounds like a winning platform to run on. Care to list all the other policies Warren is espousing that have no chance.
Followed by your screed on Bloomberg. Mr. Krugman you are a one note commentator.
It’s clear Krugman has never used a Bloomberg terminal and lacks a fundamental understanding of what the terminal does.
I believe Warren lost ground when she started listening to her handlers rather than being her authentic self, which is just one of her myriad assets. Her competency in unmatched by her rivals.
I truly foresee her as being the next Angela Merkle who will soon be stepping down as the most powerful women in the world.
How great would it be to have a President that actually does their job? Who is not out on the golf course every weekend - jetting off to Manhattan to attend the latest Broadway show - shopping and causing constant havoc and massive gridlock - and visiting 5 star restaurant just to be seen?
What has Obama ever done for the black community other than exploit it? Where is he today? Million dollar homes and private jets. It was always about his post presidency fame and fortune.
Elizabeth Warren is in this race for one thing and one thing only which is NOT herself but rather to make America truly exceptional for all. Leveling the playing field. Doing what's right for the American people rather than enriching herself. It is so blinding obvious.
One thing Warren is NOT is artificial nor can she be bought. She is a mentally and emotionally stable overtly competent woman and certainly has the proven record of getting things done - hiring the very best people - not cronyism!
A candidate with her credentials comes along very rarely and it is truly laughable the American people could be this stupid not to see it - yet again.
1
If Bloomberg really cares about this country, he'd be throwing his billions behind a qualified candidate, such as Warren.
Instead, he's going for self-coronation, with nondisclosure of how many NDA's with women. Reminds me of someone....
2
Sens. Warren and Klobuchar have been endorsed by the NY Times Edi board for the nomination of the democratic party. SEn Warren performed exceptionally in holding billionaire Bloomberg's feet to the fire. She is against Billionaires Bloomberg and Trump and we get that. What is she for? and how likely will she be successful in getting things done?
Prof. Krugman is correct in trying to address what really matters. How did Bloomberg go from a 39-year old unemployed banker to amassing wealth and becoming filthy rich enough to waste 400 million on advertisements. In case of Trump one can see Trump towers towering over the NY skyline and elsewhere in the world. You can see casinos and golf estates. How did financialization of Bloomberg take place during less than half his life time? How did our system give him a pass to keep his funny money while we in the US do not have universal health care and homes for our homeless especially in a city of which he was a mayor for a decade? Making billionaires like Bloomberg cough up their wealth for good causes makes perfect sense. I will go as far as saying the root causes of our national debt are the billionaires because they were not taxed appropriately and enough, wasteful spending and bail outs to the too big to fail who keep getting bigger.
2
@Girish Kotwal The failure to punish "too big to fail" is part of why some Obama supporters (mistakenly? foolishly?) switched to vote for Trump. They were duped-or allowed themselves to be duped-into thinking Trump would be on the side of the 'little people who pay taxes' (remember Leona Helmsley, anyone?).
Krugman's right. It was a tactical error when Warren decided to make herself over as a Sanders minion. Her campaign can still, however, right the ship and persevere. Warren is everything that Sanders is and a whole lot more besides. The CFPB is a stellar accomplishment, which she did with Obama and Pelosi. Warren does it all backwards and in heels while running through airports. That debate was so bad that I'm writing it off. I don't want reality TV. I want a real president. (The best debate by far was the PBS one.) Gotta love it how the Sanders people go after Bloomberg for his billions and in the same breath call their man the next FDR and JFK. People, FDR and JFL were essentially billionaires. The winners of that debate were Sanders, who got a free pass on everything, and Putin and Putin's puppet. Klobuchar who was gratuitously and unfairly skewered for not knowing the name of the president of Mexico was the biggest loser. (Did anybody else recall Dowd skewering Clinton?) My biggest worry about Sanders as the nominee is that he would be on every line of every ballot, and consequently have zero coattails. We might not win the Senate for ten more years. In fact it might be too late already. Unless Sanders finds it in his heart to turn toward the other candidates, moderates his position, compromises, discovers his inner pragmatist. Well, a boy can hope.
3
You may well be right that Medicare for All will not be achievable right away but it sure will be nice to have a president who is on the side of the middle and working class working hard to implement the issues that he talks about and have caused us to believe in him. He is liable to work himself into his grave working for the ideas we believe he may be able to achieve. Barack Obama largely failed when he talked about hope and change. He didn't fight like Sanders will, he organized the community and then stepped away from the fight. Let's give him the opportunity.
3
I’m having trouble keeping track of Elizabeth Warren’s shifting stances on key issues. First she backed away from Medicare for All. And now she’s reversing her opposition to super-PACs. I know she wants to win the Democratic nomination so badly, but she seems much too willing to cave on critical policy positions, especially if she thinks it will help her election chances. What gives, Liz?
2
I would be very surprised if Bloomberg had watched any of the Democrat debates; I sure hadn’t. The last one hardly qualified as a debate! Possibly he can learn how to fend off the attack dogs by the next one.
A president doesn’t need to know how to debate successfully to be a good leader. Bloomberg could be a good leader; he and Elizabeth Warren would make a great president. Too bad we can’t have co-presidents rather than vice-presidents, who essentially are chosen for their ability to carry a particular segment of the country.
It’s early days, yet, I guess we’ll have to wait and see!
Someone needs to ask why the media--in the most recent debate case, NBC TV and affiliates--keep focusing on the small differences between health care plans among all the left-of-center Democratic candidates.
How many debates must we endure where Bernie shouts at us his ideologically-rigid Medicare for All solution he and all of us know won't be enacted, and everybody else says either "I can do that better" (Warren) or "I'm more pragmatic" (all the others left on stage)?
When debate get to almost any other issue, Elizabeth Warren's policy chops and ability to wend her implementation way through Washington legislative complexities come to the fore. Ahead of everybody, and expressed with clarity.
Anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention to the Democrats knows who is where on health care. We all know that no one among the Democrats would cut safety-net programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security the way Trump has been promising to do. Can't we get beyond Bernie's plan, and to more of the issues American's care about? (And that does not include the name of the current president of Mexico.)
3
Mike Bloomberg appears to minimize the effects of his policies, actions, statements or humor on underrepresented groups including lower income people of color, women in the workplace and individuals who rely on social safety nets for survival. He has certainly devoted much of his vast fortune on philanthropy on progressive causes which is dissimilar to President Trump although share some traits related to his ego with the current President. When a candidate for political office is accustomed to being the CEO and able to call all the shots without having to work hard to create a consensus, then one becomes more intolerant of walking in the shoes of his constituents. Unlike Bernie Sanders who has remained steady in his support of everyday people's causes throughout his entire political career, Bloomberg has conveniently transformed himself opportunistically from a Democrat until 2001, then a right wing Republican while running as mayor of NYC to a moderate Democrat as the political climate changed. Bloomberg is on the record of actively supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other social safety net programs. He donated towards charter school organizations while mayor of NYC while criticizing teacher's unions. Bloomberg's 2020 presidential campaign is being run by corporate lobbyists. For instance, his spokesperson, Stu Loeser, represented Purdue Pharma, to combat their negative public image. His campaign’s senior adviser Mitch Stewart & Kevin Sheekey are lobbyists.
1
My worry about Bernie is that he won't seek more middle ground in a general election by at least toning down his Socialist mantra even if he didn't change one policy. His long seminar on "Democratic Socialism" has been a failure since its just as ripe for misinterpretation now as its ever been - and boy Trump's minions will make you think Bernie is the second coming of Lenin, Pol Pot, and Maduro wrapped into one. His official surrogates have been a disaster regarding explaining this and his campaign doesn't seem to have any strong voices that would challenge him to suggest an alternative path like focusing more on being the heir of Roosevelt and the New Deal. I know Bernistas who think that the whole socialist thing is a red herring and it will not be an issue in the general election. Unfortunately I feel it can and it will.
2
The Dem debate was troubling because the focus was scoring negative points against others rather than on policies that would counter the tRump wrecking ball. It would be great to hear candidates that corporations and the private sector are in fact the drivers of economic success. The role of government should be to tame the beast through reasonable regulations that make sure the private sector acknowledges the contributions to success from employees, infrastructure provided by local, State and Federal governments, including public education and the rule of law. It is incumbent on corporations as well as individuals to support all of that infrastructure that makes success possible. The current emphasis on driving increasing amounts of wealth to the top at the expense of the vast majority is a recipe for ultimate failure. We clearly need to recognize that government is not the problem but is a large part of the solution as long as we devote appropriate resources and assure they are administered through a fair and transparent process. The exact opposite of what the current criminal administration and the Republican enablers are about.
Our financial markets are structured based on the assumption that the Efficient Markets hypothesis is more or less correct, most of the time, and desirable. Bloomberg's terminals aid in the price discovery function of markets. Amazing that a Nobel Prize winning economist doesn't understand the importance of rapid price discovery.
1
A most important column, particularly for those of us laymen who were, frankly, puzzled by the very idea of financial "products". It seemed to us, I think,that money - in transforming from a somewhat concrete medium of exchange to an evanescent "good" allied with an arcane "service" - literally defined our culture thereafter. In political terms, it is neither capitalism nor socialism. Rather, it may be termed "wealthism".
1
Prof. Krugman,
Good points all, but is it possible to definancialize the economy -- to reverse the flow of manufacturing from the U.S. to low wage, no environmental and labor protection countries?
For the better part of thirty years, I was employed as a portfolio manager of fixed income investments - largely bond portfolios of both government and corporate bonds of a range of maturities. I was one of the early users of a Bloomberg terminal, and made significant use of the latter technology to manage an array of bond investments diversified by issuing sector and often currency. Understanding the inherent risk in a diversified bond portfolio whether to overall interest rate changes in the economy or market assessment of credit risk to individual holdings is no easy task. The Bloomberg technology made the job of assessing the latter risks and many others much easier resulting in better and more beneficial investment decisions. The investment philosophy of the organization I worked for was focused on meeting the investment needs of our clients over typically longer term investment horizons. The Bloomberg terminal was and continues to be an invaluable tool supporting investment management by professional money managers who for the most part manage investment assets for pension and retirement funds with very long time horizons. Mr Krugman’s characterization of a Bloomberg terminal as an integral component of a financial arms race that short term traders use to make millions with no benefit to to the overall economy or productivity simply does not square with my experience.
1
The problem with financial system reform is that people like me who grew up with the work ethic, not the work-the-system-and get-rich ethic, don't understand the financial system overall, just the parts of it we encounter at the bank. As voters, we need more financial education but candidates in a campaign have to talk about results. How will their policies make my life better? Will I pay less for good health insurance? Will less of my paycheck go for the childcare I must have to work? If I need to go to college for a better-paying job, can I afford the tuition? When I retire, will I have enough to cover basic expenses as the cost of living rises?
As an economist, you could do us a favor by helping candidates like Warren and Sanders make a case that putting more money in the bank accounts of the working and middle classes by reducing their healthcare, childcare, and education outlays is sound economic policy, not just "free stuff." It is economic stimulus based on consumer demand. Not "trickle down" but "bubble up."
It's odd that Warren hasn't staked out what is clearly her turf. As the creator of the CFPB, she should be running ads showcasing regular people who benefited from the CFPB by winning cases against payday lenders and other dubious entities. Why are her campaign people not using the best tool in her kit?
3
@Pete
Yeah, right. She would need to have 100 millions to do just that.
What is wrong with people who don't understand how expensive elections are. Bloomberg spent 400 millions on ads.
1
@CarolinaJoe No. Ads don't cost that much. What is wrong with people who use Bloomberg as an example?
They write about the Fifties like it was some magical time. It wasn’t, it was just pent up demand for material objects after 15 years of depression and war. That was 20 years of production, then the demand was filled. Everything seems to be in 20-30 year cycles. Magazines, radio, TV and now the internet. Mom and Pop stores, Department stores, Malls and now Online shopping. Nothing stays the same.
2
"...a financial arms race that costs vast sums but leaves everyone pretty much back where they started." Or worse?
I am a social psychologist, not an economist, but it seems to me that much what goes on in the financial world is far more self-serving and psychological than it is economic and promoting a healthy society.
My impression is several key events were sold to the American public, which pushed the wild west financialization of the U.S. economy--largely by removing the financial sector's responsibility to people and the larger society: (1) Milton Friedman's sagely advice to businesses and corporations to focus on investors at the expense of workers and customers; (2) Reagan's trickle-down and deregulation hypotheses; and (3) the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton that made our depositors' money the financial institutions' money to gamble with. Too simplified probably; I may have the wrong impression.
Part of this financialization involved new financial "products" such as derivatives and hedge funds, greatly aided by accelerated computers making lots of decisions to accelerate the wealth-accumulation of the few.
We saw giant corporations with thousands of employees in trouble, bailed out by equity firms (like Romney's, Toys R Us, etc.) that paid themselves bonuses, closed lots of stores, fired employees (what happened to their pensions??).
My question is: Are certain financial practices actively harming lots of people & society? If so, which ones?
Go Liz!
3
I'm a big fan of Warren. Throughout the campaign, I've waffled several times between Sanders and Warren, and would be happy with either at the top of the Dem ticket. Unfortunately, because of political stumbles - and let's face it, the sexist way in which female politicians are often covered in the media - I don't think Warren is going to make it. Sanders would be wise to tap her as VP.
2
And she would be wise not to accept the offer.
Our monstrous healthcare system has impacts on everyone. Our deformed financial system not so much. Plus the reason that we "can't change" healthcare is not because Medicare for All makes less efficient or less fair but because the financial might of the healthcare industry has bought enough members of Congress to block any action, including the public option.
The best way to fight corruption is to fight corruption. To force Congress, including donor friendly Democrats, to take a stand with us or against us. Then we can throw out the scabs in the next election. Democracies fight corruption mainly through elections. Regulation is secondary.
Bloomberg should hire a skilled defense attorney to coach him on how to respond to Warren's "prosecution" against him that's bound to happen again in the next debate. At minimum he would be able to turn the attention to her flaws and minimize his own.
Thanks for raising perhaps the most important change in our economy ever. That is the change from the founder economy to the investor economy. The irony of this change is that the only players left who actually care about the long term economic health of a business are the employees, which is why investors want to change them into independent contractors who have a gig, not a job, while the investor eliminates all the expenses needed for the long term health of the business to make its financials look good long enough to sell the business and move to another zip code before it dies from their stewardship of the business they invested in.
2
I started off as a Warren supporter because of her position against financialization. When she swung left to resemble Bernie, my support waned. She's too far left for me or for the general election, but she is more presentable than Sanders.
The Never Trumper in me took a good hard look at Bloomberg, but is skeptical after what I've read about him and because of his lackluster performance in the debate. The other Democrats don't do anything for me.
If Warren can swing back towards the center and convince me that she will emphasize the de financialization of the American economy, she can get me back on board. She has until March 3 to do it.
When the manipulators make more than the creators, it is a clear sign that we are on the decline.
5
"Furthermore, by all accounts the bureau was wildly successful, saving ordinary families billions, until the Trump administration set about eviscerating it.
Many argued that the Bureau was "wildly successful," true, but not all, for many believed its director, with Senator Warren's support and urging, ran amok, going far beyond the intent and language of the statute to interfere with honest and balanced business practices and that the interference caused unnecessary costs and business losses that profited no one, except politicians posing as consumer advocates.
1
Can you be specific and cite instances of her overreach?
1
Bernie is espousing policy that has worked in all the Nordic states for over 50 years. These governments are all true democracy's (unlike ours) and they are all capitalist market economies. They are also the most educated,healthiest, and happiest people in the world. That could be us if you just don't buy in to the red baiting propaganda...most people don't anymore that's why Bernie's winning ....
5
@plamb I wish people would stop referring to the Nordics, as they are on the complete other end of taxation and government size.
There are plenty of countries that are closer to the US in diversity and free market leaning policy, but still manage to pay for and provide a decent safety net and have excellent infrastructure. The Netherlands is a great example.
1
@Liz it's not the size that matter....
Warren's been my first choice from the start. Then I thought, 'maybe she'd wilt under Trump's bombast and belittling, maybe we need a strong man like Bloomberg?'
Then I watched the debate; Bloomberg fizzled and Warren was a smash-mouth street fighter! Who knew -- the one with the most complete, detailed proposals was a bulldozer in hand-to-hand combat.
I'm back on Elizabeth's bandwagon, for now.
5
A TV pundit put it best when she characterized Warren as potentially a very good president, but that she lacks some political skills-- charm, flexibility, and a sense of balance and timing. She has great personal power, but needs to use it wisely. Attraction and hope, in whatever form, are what get votes. Obama and Bill Clinton were masters at it.
3
Obama and Bill Clinton, as much as I loved them both, helped to promote the presidency as a cult of personality. Now Trump has shown us how destructive that can be, in the hands of someone with no knowledge or respect for the American constitution. Elizabeth is the only candidate with the ability and will to change this. Her strength in this last debate was built on what she has consistently stood for since even before she entered politics: the need to reform the system so that it works for all Americans.
1
To support Dr. Krugman's observation, plot the S&P 500 year aggregate end closing by year inflation adjusted on a semi-log graph. You will see a clear best fit line (proportional to the compound growth rate) possible through the data from 1871 to the late 1980"s. From that point on a new best fit line is possible but at a much higher slope and therefore higher compound growth rate. This neatly fits the period when the US economy transitions from manufacturing to finances and data driven companies.
Is that higher growth rate justified and sustainable?
Dr. Krugman, what is your opinion about a wealth tax?
The US is the only country in the world with citizenship-based taxation, at least at the moment, as I'm sure it's a prime target of the wealthy. And Obama did excellent work with the FATCA laws.
Wouldn't it work, contrary to EU countries, where rich folks can just move their residency to the country next door?
When the interest on the National Debt becomes the largest part of the Federal Budget would it be prudent to start paying down the principal?
Professor,
You Central Thesis of the shift from making things to playing monopoly is THE central issue of out time. It affects everything.
Too bad most people do not get how much of out life like middle class wages, world wide CO2 levels and so much more can be traced right back to that Central Thesis.
Of course all the Economists today in positions to influence policy were educated when I was in around 1980. When I tried to tell a class exactly the same thing as your Central Thesis I was cut to shreds not only by my fellow students by The Professor.
Is it any doubt that we have arrived where we are at today?
Their Paradigm is being propped up by a thousand complications. When it fails it will fail big with disastrous results for every American.
I just hope I am dead when it happens. As sure as I was in 1980 about what the changes from business going from makers to dealers would do, I am sure of what is coming.
2
A good column regarding the financialization of the economy. I hope that Krugman will focus his analytic skills on the record corporate that is being parked off balance sheet in tradable "assets", i.e.swaps contracts. The CFTC is tearing up Dodd Frank, just as Trump promised he would, rule by rule. Historically, the NYT has focused more on the SEC and equity prices. It's time for Krugman to analyze the proposed CFTC cross-border, public swaps trade data reporting and (soon to be released) automated trading rules to appreciate how far the global banks (swaps dealers) will go to protect their financialization of the economy.
1
Very interesting analysis of the productivity-stripping effects of Finance as a growing aspect of our economy. Dr. Krugman, you've been writing a lot recently about the lack of productivity gains in our economy, which you use as evidence that automation is not happening at anywhere near the rate that some claim. Well, could this not be the productivity sink? Financialization since the early '80s coincides exactly with the rise of computers, so would we not expect to see exactly this: increased automation (hence increased productivity) counterbalanced by financial economic drag?
1
As I've knocked on doors for Elizabeth Warren I've met a number of people who say, "I just don't like her, I don't know why."
I asked one man (poor guy) repeatedly what he didn't like about her. He couldn't give me an answer. I finally asked if she reminded him of his mother...
Full disclosure: Bernie Sanders reminds me of my father and that's not a good thing - I was shouted at for enough years. But I'll vote for him if he's the nominee. I'll just work as much as I can for EW!
5
Mr. Krugman's knowledge of the Bloomberg Terminal, what it does, who uses it and why is alarmingly ignorant.
Bloomberg did more to rein in Wall St than any government bureaucracy could imagine.
In the 1980s Bloomberg began providing transparency in the government bond markets. Investors there are mutual and pension funds for teachers, fireman and other "everyday Americans".
Before Bloomberg the bond markets were notoriously opaque. An investor would call a bank for a quote. The guy who was selling you the bond told you what it was worth. Sounds fair, right?
Bloomberg democratized those markets by providing transparency. Investors were no longer reliant on the honesty of Goldman Sachs to quote fair prices.
Bloomberg added corporate bonds. That meant they had to have information on companies. That's an equity product. Equities lead to commodities (if you're analyzing an energy company or one that serves it you'll need to analyze the underlying market). Because it's a global market economics and foreign exchange were added.
Bloomberg levels the playing field for stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, and all the related derivative instruments investors buy, corporations issue and both use to protect themselves from market fluctuations... and bankers.
The CFPB is another minor obstacle for investment banks and broker-dealers to navigate.
Bloomberg pulls back the curtain on Wall St taking away much of its ability to obscure fair value.
Wall Street HATES Bloomberg.
4
I am torn, like many other independents: I like what Mr. trump is doing about the borders and the stock market, but almost nothing else about him. Yet, the bunch of desperadoes on the Wednesday nigh stage in NV (with the exception of Bloomberg) was downright unsettling. I might just have to sit this one out in November.
1
@Mikhail23
Do hope you will enjoy a raise in food prices. According to the farm bureau fruit production will be down around 60% and vegetable production will be down about 32% due to the lack of immigrant labor.
2
Shortly after he was elected President in 1964 Lyndon Johnson was told it would be too difficult to pass Civil Rights legislation. It couldn’t be done; he didn’t have the votes for the bill to leave Committee, etc. Yet, as we know, by persuasion, coercion, and political smarts he got it done. In fact, in the late 1950s when he was majority leader of the Senate, Johnson spearheaded the first Civil Rights legislation passed since the 1870s. Perhaps President Obama’s woefully inadequate Affordable Care Act can be a similar steppingstone for the passage of what has been proven, by many nations, to be the most efficient and effective system for healthcare delivery,
3
"But maybe the Warren-Bloomberg confrontation will help refocus discussion away from so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins..." That is precisely the point we have to ponder, that not only will "Medicare " for all not be enacted, but neither will any other proposal a Democratic President puts forward as long as Mitch McConnell remains firmly in control of the Senate. Getting rid of McConnell is almost, if not as important as electing a Democratic President. Both 45 and McConnell need to go if we are ever to move forward again in this country. Nothing except appointment of conservative judges is getting done - McConnell is stifling any effort by the House to get legislation passed.
In the Democratic Party we are devouring our own, and making it easier for the Republicans to walk away with the Presidency and perhaps control of both Houses of Congress once again. There is no perfect candidate. Each has flaws. We need to stop the negative narrative about each candidate. We are doing the Republicans hack job for them, and they are gleeful. We are our own worst enemy. Let the primaries and debates sort the candidates. We also have to accept whoever the choice is and back that person 1000 percent. The Republicans backed the worst candidate in the history of this country and won.
I just want 45 and McConnell GONE! I want the country I was proud of back. It left when President Obama saw the White House in his rear view mirror.
9
If Elizabeth Warren is not the nominee, I fear Democrats will lose, again.
She is the only candidate who has proven that she can get measures passed, whose head is not in the cloud, and who can make mincemeat out of Donald Trump in a debate. The little bit of personal baggage she has is nothing compared to Trump's. Please Democrats, do the smart thing.
Besides, isn't it about time for a woman to be president in the U.S.? Let's see if she can get out out of this mess. There is every indication that she can, and we can be assured she'll give it her best shot.
6
The article brings up a very good point regarding a candidate's responsibility to explain and lay out a reasonable level of detail how they would enact their various major proposals. Health care reform is a perfect example. Warren as a responsible candidate laid out the details on her website regarding how her version of medicare for all would be enacted including the all important aspect of how it would be paid for down to the various cash flows and tax changes. Sanders for all his talk on this issue never lays out any of these details. He just rails against the the current health care industry and that under his plan Americans won't have to pay deductibles or co-pays but will be fully covered. He doesn't provide the details. This lack of details is a consistent pattern for Sanders.
Here's the point. Don't let candidates fool you with slogans and rants. Those without details supporting their ideas are just selling you on a dream for them to get elected. If it's important get the details to compare the plans!
3
I really enjoy Mr Krugman’s columns, he fact he is for me one of the main attractions of a NYT subscription. I am very interested in history. My question is this. From a longer term historical perspective is the economic period following WWII the exception rather than the rule? Isn’t income inequality, both within a country and between global regions, inherent to capitalism especially after the industrial revolution? What will it require to change this and how can we get our fellow citizens to accept it especially in this age of easy mass disinformation? I think there will be many more enjoyable and informative columns from Mr Krugman.
Tread carefully here. I agree with much of Krugman's piece. However, real GDP growth has increased since 1980. He is absolutely right about the lack of proportional gains, but one cannot argue that broad economic growth hasn't improved.
Dear Mr. Krugman, it's not radical to want reform and to fight against elements of the health care and insurance industries that are saddled on the backs of Americans who can't afford the care or the insurance. But it is radical to believe that the health care industry can be remade and the health insurance industry can be dismantled in a few years or one or two prez administrations. It will be a bitter battle summoning Stone and Manafort-esque dirty tricksters (criminals and sneaky charlatans just shy of the statutory line) from under their damp rock-covered abodes. Billions will be paid to lobbyists on both sides, wordsmithed lies will ring so true from steeples in town squares, and a daily new parable extolling American patriotism will blanket TV and print media like flag bunting on campaign stages. It will be a flag waving blood bath, having little to do with patriotism, for years. But no worse than the blood bath from so many who now lack of access to health care.
1
Thanks for this analysis. It's food for though and I always admired what Sen. Warren did with the CFPB, but her attacks of other candidates and the Bernie Bros. attacks on all have turned me off on both she and Bernie. I want a uniter for President, someone who can speak to all Americans. Since Michael Bloomberg gives generously to the causes I care most passionately about and is a creative problem solver, he and Amy Klobuchar are my top picks. I have no doubt he would be a benevolent oligarch and like FDR he hopefully would have the capacity and will to make change. By the time the primary race comes to New Mexico, I'll vote for anyone except Bernie. Until recently I was committed to voting for any Democrat in the general, but the Bernie Bros with their rapacious smears of Bloomberg and Warren on Facebook have completely alienated me from Bernie.
1
Such a shame that Warren couldn’t be bothered to mention her loyalty to progressive policies she now professes to support, (when used for her own personal gain), last election and do her part to spare the world from the-Dementor-who-must-not-be-elected-again. It’s almost impossible to calculate the amount of disaster and pain a Sanders presidency instead could have prevented in every corner of the world. Character matters. Trustworthiness matters.
3
It would help Warren if she dressed in a more presidential manner, especially at formal events such as a televised debate. This is a fraught issue for her because, unlike her male counterparts, there is no standard presidential outfit for a woman. A man has a well-fitting dark suit, white shirt, red or blue tie, plus the standard shoes that go with this. But how she dresses is also a fraught issue for Warren because she has backed herself into a corner fashion-wise with her unvarying costume (black pants, purple-ish jacket, black top, black boots or flats, and small stud earrings). No variation, ever. While the proper presidential outfit for a woman at a debate is less defined, I'm pretty sure this isn't it. It is too casual for the situation. I realize this could come across as trivial. But I think people have to be able to visualize a person in a role. The apparent rigidity that her unvarying costume suggests also bothers me. It is, frankly, rather Trump-like - though his costume is far more cartoonish than hers. I wish she'd loosen up her own self-imposed dress code.
2
YES. In some struggles, it is necessary to choose the hill you want to die on.
Sanders is too old, and his image of the revolution is too strident for many. The moderates are largely too tepid to inspire the young, and their front-runners have age or image problems. All of them, and some of the dropouts, would make excellent VPs or cabinet officers. The depth and competence of a potential Democratic administration is formidable.
If there is a standout for policy and unquestioned competence, Warren occupies it. And frankly, I think her candidature might give Donald Trump a well-deserved coronary from sheer fury at facing a competent woman who would serve him up for lunch in a debate.
Electability is a phantom; who thought Donald Trump, America's leading buffoon, was electable. But against Hillary, who doesn't know how to scrape, he was. Warren has smarts, grit, energy and competence. She also knows what needs to be fixed if the Republic is to survive.
2
We cannot think this way: she’d make mince meat of him! There is no guarantee that he will debate anyone. He has already said he won’t debate if he doesn’t like the commentators or debate sponsor! We back a great debater and we’ll be left holding the bag with egg on our faces!
Again, Mr. Krugman has hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the people who are being harmed by "financialization" are unaware of these massive economic and social tides. It is akin to the problem of climate change, where those in harm's way do not see the rise of seas nor appreciate the heating of their region of the country.
How does a Democratic candidate get it across to those same people that they are being robbed, harmed, tossed in an economic dumpster by those at the top? Trump has been effective in appealing to certain elements who want good jobs and who at the same time do not appreciate the sham that has been created. Regressive tax policies, mounting deficits and restriction of social benefit programs disproportionately harm Trump voters, but they refuse to understand this reality. The challenge is that a Democrat must get across the message: "You've been robbed, you've been scammed."
I am waiting for a Democrat to adopt epithets for Trump. The economic issues will supply a number of possibilities.
Great column as I learned about the making of the Bloomberg wealth. I agree that Warren's creation of the Consumer Protection Bureau was brilliant, now undermined by Trump and Mick, to the detriment of consumers. Bloomberg by all measures is the strongest in the field to beat the corrupt, amoral, fraudulent Trump. Your other major point most important, that no matter all the noise about healthcare, that fight cannot be won today. The debate centered on much yelling about that, less about other very important issues.
1
Such a shame that Warren couldn’t be bothered to mention her loyalty to progressive policies she now professes to support, (when used for her own personal gain), last election and do her part to spare the world from the-Dementor-who-must-not-be-elected-again. It’s almost impossible to calculate the amount of disaster and pain a Sanders presidency instead could have prevented in every corner of the world. Character matters. Trustworthiness matters.
1
My biggest problem with Warren is that while she is brilliant, and while she speaks the truth, she is brilliantly speaking truth that a large swath of America either isn’t ready to hear or doesn’t believe.
She is ahead of her time. So is Bernie. The plain truth is that we are not going to win an election with someone ahead of their time. We have failed to ensure that every pocket of America is making progress and that is being taught in their public schools. I was an English teacher in a high school where the U.S. Government teacher let them play the game Life and gave them 100’s. We are not teaching Civics anymore, especially in red states, and that’s why so many people look at Liz and Bernie like they have lobsters crawling out of their ears.
So I’ll say it again. We have to take baby steps. Just because we see one vision for the future doesn’t mean everybody else does. I feel the need to quote Miss Daisy: “I taught some of the stupidest children God ever put on the face of the earth and even they could read.”
Well, maybe they can read, but the problem is, they’re not reading the truth. They’re reading lies. They’re being fed lies. And until we stop this disinformation, we will not be able to get them on board with our vision.
Just when the Wall Street and short sighted US CEOs started implementing their destructive practices of financial engineering in the 1980s, China began paying more attention to real engineering. 40 years later, we are witnessing the carnage of our major industries. After transferring our technology to China, off-shoring our jobs to Mexico/China, outsourcing information technology to, and in-sourcing H1B workers from India, the Wall Street, investors and the CEOs have reaped tremendous rewards. The working class have been left to fend for themselves - they have been robbed of their opportunities by the dirty scheming / rigging being carried out by the financial elites (C level execs, Wall Street banksters, ...). The same elites are now controlling our political process with their untraceable dark money, aided and abetted by amoral social media, specifically Facebook.
Sen. Warren may be our answer - if only we put on our thinking caps, and collectively exercise our right to vote.
2
Warren has been plagued by sexism since the beginning. Her depth of intelligence, her policy proposals, her ability to talk one on one to voters, her understanding of the problems faced by the majority of Americans and the planet are heads above any other candidate now running. But the media, and many voters, still challenge her on absurd likability metrics; what's not to like? No one has anything constructive to say about this, just vague comments never uttered about any of her male challengers. Thank you for mentioning how she got raked over the coals for her Medicare for All proposal but Bernie got a pass. very annoying.
6
Bernie is unelectable(yet his supporters are blind to that ), as is my candidate-Elizabeth Warren(and I think she would be the best president t since FDR). Amy K is a hack with a terrible record as a DA. Pete is also unelectable in this country today. Since no one on earth is worse than Trump, I will support anyone who can beat him and if that is Bloomberg, so be it. The dems need to focus on what Carville said-one needs to win to get power, from power we can do good things, failure to gain power equals more Trump destruction. Lets get the most electable candidate and stop the circle firing squad. My fear is that a lot of the Bernie supporters will whine and take their ball and go home(not vote) like a lot did last time, and we will get Trump for 4 more years.
4
I would be fine with Bloomberg or Warren -- Biden would be a placeholder. I don't see Klobuchar or Buttagieg with broad appeal or getting much done. Klobuchar is a hot mess.
Sanders is an ego-driving maniac. No one I know likes him, and my former R friends say they would just stay home from the polls. Of course he is popular among low-information, low-education voters who want their student loans forgiven and free stuff. Thanks but no thanks, Bernie.
I would much rather see a brokered convention. Who cares if we alienate half of his idiotic followers. Only the Bernie Bros will stay home. The rest will probably vote for the Dem slate. It's also not fair that because of Iowa and NH and the fractured moderate choices that a crazy man wins with 30% of the electors. So 30% wins over 70%? That's worse than the electoral college.
4
I am uncertain that I would call the cage match in Las Vegas a debate. Elizabeth Warren was throwing old charges at Michael Bloomberg regarding sexual harassment. I don't really know what 78 year old white male is going to go unscathed in the era of "me too". I have not seen any plans from Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders that are going to work. With a flurry of promises of free college I think of my brother and others who paid retail on two children going to two expensive liberal arts colleges. What is she going to do for parents that saved and got their children through college with no debt? My guess is nothing. I am voting for Bloomberg because I know that he is not perfect but he is the only candidate that can repair the damage done by Trump.
2
My hope for the future of this country were dashed on Wednesday night. It wasn't a debate but rather a gang bang on Bloomberg. I could care less about his wealth, the NDA's and what he calls women. I am concerned for the environment, the economy and the rise of hate in the US. Warren, Sanders and the rest of the gang bangers were as bad as Bloomberg.
3
I am no fan of Bloomberg as mayor, but I find it unfair to castigate his success building an enormously successful business despite having a reputation as a jerk as a CEO. And he did without inheriting hundreds of millions from daddy. He should have paid a lot more tax but you can’t blame him for building Bloomberg into what it is. And I am pretty far left progressive.
2
Wednesday's debate returned me to Warren strictly because I think she will make the best president. I've given up trying to out-think voters in states Trump narrowly won.
Knocked out were Bloomberg the knight, Amy the vinegary appeaser, Sanders the one-note crusader, Biden the tried-and-almost, Pete the smooth.
Warren, who has real grasp of domestic issues, can grow on voters as Trump continues his descent into crazy. She can pick a VP with international chops.
4
give me one good reason why Medicare for all is a bad idea.
1
I'm grateful for Paul Krugman and I'm grateful for Elizabeth Warren.
You got it!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Not really mentioned in the debate, I would add info about cheap and cheaper labor through outsourcing and certain visa programs.
I once wrote letters for foreign engineers to attain their green cards. Too, my son met his Korean wife in medical school. She's beyond wonderful.
At some point meritocracy was over run by greed! Not that every American was great. I worked with some engineers that went to the Narcissus School of Engineering. America's CEO's began to follow their lead.
I was shocked back in 1997 when an engineer from another part of the world told the design team I worked for, that my project was garbage. It was after he touched it! He didn't understand that you couldn't have a voltage drop across a diode when there was no diode!
He became a source of derision after that.
3
Warren’s financial industry acumen is invaluable, but that is where it ends as she has presented herself as little more than a chameleon on all other issues, leaving a vast credibility vacuum. Her excessive angry rant caused more harm, negatively impacting all rivals. Democrat candidates, as revealed in this damaging struggle to the death debate, cemented their defeat by an unmasking of this entire inept cadre of means as merely proletariat wannabees. Buttigieg book deals also make him a member of the country club, so he no longer can claim otherwise.
2
Quick question- Why is ensuring access to healthcare for all Americans a "radical" idea?
1
Because it cannot be financed with the handicaps we have to work with. What are they? Look to any other country with a good healthcare plan for all and compare what their doctors make in comparison to ours. Compare hospital costs, drug prices, and supplements needed to cover operations, birth, prolonged illnesses etc. We on Medicare pay premiums, plus another plan to cover drugs, another for dental AND a supplement that picks up where Medicare leaves off. It is not FREE! I do not believe Bernie at all. Until we break the stranglehold of the drug companies, other healthcare providers and excessive prices doctors & hospitals charge M4 A is not affordable! It’s that simple and should not be that hard to figure out!
1
The article is a good mini-history of how we got to a society without many dreams left.
We know it's all just legalized gambling and betting with a marked deck at that, but we're just serving the beer and pretzels and sweeping up because we don't have a seat at the table.
So a half century of predatory business — predatory mortgages, predatory student loans, predatory credit cards, predatory "insurance" plans and, well, what we down here in the bottom fifty percent with no real income or property want is protection.
Media and the status quo still don't get it. Facts don't matter, yes this is how the economy "works" but why should we care? It doesn't work for us. We live lives of fear and anxiety. Lives which almost always end in shattered dreams.
We want universal health care—LIKE EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD — because we don't want to have to worry about sickness, suffering, old age, and medical bankruptcy!
We know the rich will get richer and business will remain corrupt — we know there's no level playing field coming our way in our lifetimes. That's why Warren was not wrong to embrace Universal Healthcare, and why it has to be in the party platform, because otherwise it's just Clinton 3 — nothing on offer for the workers won't win the Midwest and the Electoral College.
1
Has the US ever, ever, ever elected a radical, left-wing socialist who wants to abolish an entire industry, double the size of the federal government, kick 150 million people who their healthcare policies, and who once wanted to nationalize all types of US industries? No. So, Sanders is a loser. And with him goes Warren, who herself has turned into a screaming, shrill, shrew, great at lobbying entrapment questions.
Does anyone have confidence in Joe Biden to get the job done? No. He’s a nice guy, but way past his prime and his level of competence.
Who’s left? Klobuchar is great, but hasn’t made it to the top tier, and with Super Tuesday coming up, she’s about to run out of money to compete.
That leaves Bloomberg. He has incredible experience building a business, being fabulously successful, and then running the biggest and most complex city in the nation for 12 years.
Is Bloomberg some saint? I don’t know, maybe not. But we’re not electing a saint.
We hold elections on Tuesdays. If you’re waiting for the Messiah, that you do on Sundays.
It’s either Bloomberg or 4 more years of Trump, and with that the end of the American experiment in democracy.
2
When history looks back on this era I'll bet they will interpret financialization as the key element in the destruction and ruin of America. A great people took their eye off the ball that made them great, and went on to engage in an orgy of greed, avarice and self-interested dealings that ultimately led to their down-fall. Sound familiar; almost....Roman....in its aspect doesn't it?
So it goes...
John~
American Net'Zen
1
Democrats just don't get it; the opposition doesn't care about NDAs or politically incorrect statements. They vote for their guy because he's not Democrat and because by hook and crook, policy decisions and appointments they like happen. At this rate, come November 2020, Dems will be once again scratching their heads as to what went wroing, when the answer has been staring them in the face since 2016.
1
"Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins"
Not unless Regressive GOP gets the. And conservative (= status quo + zombie idea) Dems too.
Economic health for all--is another Progressive idea.
"there is no evidence that Wall Street’s mega-expansion made the rest of the economy more efficient. On the contrary...family incomes slowed down..... And ...[it} set the stage for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It also made Michael Bloomberg a billionaire....[his is] an extremely profitable business. But is it good for the economy? No."
Economic health for all is not about trickle down tips from Bloomberg and his ilk.
Warren, Sanders too, are better for economic health care for all. Zombie free!
The column contains a nice, short explanation of the transition from Industrial Capitalism to Financial Capitalism. Some other good sources for that topic are Kevin Phillips ("Bad Money") and Michael Hudson: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/michael-hudson-the-paradox-of-financialized-industrialization.html
Have to disagree with Mr Krugman. Warren came off mistaking the competition for the enemy. Scolding with carefully scripted words, she sounded like the trailer for a #MeToo movie. Good for fund raising, but her problem is Bernie, not Bloomberg. She unloaded with vitriol that far exceeded a rational takedown of his policies and business practices. It seems she hates his wealth which she equates with arrogance and entitlement. I might agree but Bloomberg's wealth was acquired by hard work over years. He didn't win a lottery or inherit his wealth.
Bloomberg, caught like a deer in the headlights, didn't seem like a great businessman. A great businessman who just invested $340 million in a new venture, would certainly do everything possible to protect his investment. Debate prep 101 would be the first step. He reacted as if these accusations came out of nowhere. That's worse than Warren's misstep. As a billionaire, Bloomberg doesn't have to listen to anyone, and that's probably the key to being poorly prepared. Truth to power. Either he wasn't told or didn't listen.
If I were advising Trump, I'd tell him to refuse to debate the Democratic nominee. Like withholding his taxes, Trump will suffer no adverse effects. He'll do his rallies without the need to soil his hands rolling in the muck with a Democrat.
He'll troll, watch Dems fume, and his base will love him more. It's in keeping with his asymmetric style. Chaos.
2
The CFPB alone should put EW at the top of everyone's list who is not directly benefitting from defrauding large segments of the population!
Elizabeth Warren was my first choice in 2016 when she made the mistake of stepping aside for Hilary Clinton. “No more Mr. Nice Girl” is what I said to women I worked with on the Clinton/Kane campaign — purely out of fear. I am not a member of the Democratic Party which rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity as was evident again last night in the circular firing squad which amused that “low life from Queens” (in the hopefully immortal words of George Will). Yet I voted for Bloomberg with the expectation that he was in fact prepared for a serious run. I think I was wrong about both of them and share your view that the financialization of our economy — and the tax structure — have helped too few. I confess to being stunned by the failure of the Bloomberg campaign and the candidate to prepare. It’s shameful in my view, given the stakes and would have gotten him and his staff tossed from a lot of board rooms on Wall Street. I really like Elizabeth Warren but fear that she turns off voters we need.
1
Sanders is actually starting on the left and may negotiate IN GOOD FAITH to a middle ground once he is President. Obama started in a neo-liberal middle, basically using a Koch Brothers plan from the '90's as his starting ground for the ACA. In an atmosphere where a lot of people on both sides wanted to get something done, he moved to the right of the Koch Brothers plan to get the ACA passed...a guarantee to all private health care companies that you will get your profit margins from all US citizens.
Now, there were definitely good, needed things in the ACA, but today, too many on the left view that as the end goal. The ACA was a huge compromise to the right. I want every Republican to be forced to say that either Medicare is bad, and we should completely get rid of it, or it is good and should be available to everyone. I'm really tired of them getting away with saying SOCIALIST MEDICINE IS THE DEVIL COMING TO DESTROY AMERICA!!! OH, and I won't touch Medicare, that is safe!
"Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins"
Not unless Regressive GOP gets the boot. And conservative (= status quo + zombie idea) Dems too.
Economic health for all--is another Progressive idea.
"there is no evidence that Wall Street’s mega-expansion made the rest of the economy more efficient. On the contrary...family incomes slowed down..... And ...[it} set the stage for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It also made Michael Bloomberg a billionaire....[his is] an extremely profitable business. But is it good for the economy? No."
Also behind the mega expansion are property tax and labor law--Sanders rigged system.
Economic health for all is not about trickle down tips from Bloomberg and his ilk. Warren, Sanders too, are better for economic health care for all. Zombie free!
One could think that you are backing away from your earlier view that the only important thing here is keeping Trump from reelection. If so, why?
Prof. K.: You restate your dismissmal of Medicare for All here (again): "But maybe the Warren-Bloomberg confrontation will help refocus discussion away from so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins....."
Allow me to be so bold as to point out that history does not support your certainty that MFA cannot be enacted, and I wish you would stop and consider the effects of your substituting of gross speculation for the facts of political history at such a crucial time:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/medicare-made
The president is the chief executive officer of the federal government of the United States of America.
Got that?
Now this.
“She endorsed proposals for radical health care reform that have almost no chance of becoming reality, and she was raked over the coals about paying for those proposals even though Sanders himself has offered few clues about his own plans.”
So the person who wants to be chief executive—and Krugman prefers to Sanders—picked a foolish and useless fight in her campaign to be president
A tactically and strategically foolish and inept decision that needlessly made the re election of Trump more likely.
And no one who helped her do this has been shown the door.
And Krugman takes a shot at Sanders.
I don’t care. I am a hostage to the inept democrats because of Trump.
But the level of dumb of the democrats and the experts is stunning. They aren’t even as smart as the fascists.
1
All I want to know is when the media/press is going to scrutinize Bernie the way they have every other candidate for over a year. Bernie is the front-runner now and he continues to get a pass always. WHY???
He is the oldest, most unaccomplished and least qualified of any candidate. He has more ugly baggage than any 3 candidates combined but he still gets a pass. WHY????
As far as I can tell the only thing Bernie has actually accomplished in his long life, after almost 40 years of living off the taxpayer (his only steady paycheck ever) representing the smallest, whitest, lowest GDP state in the country, is to elevate his personal status from unemployed, living on unemployment benefits, stealing his neighbor's electricity to amassing a personal net worth of $11ML.
And the media/press still give him a pass. WHY???
It dismays me greatly that any thinking person would support this old empty suit, the least qualified, least accomplished, nothing but "the loudest voice in the room" disruptor and agitator.
It dismays me far more that the American press/media must continues to give him a pass.
ABB
1
Present throughout Mr. Krugman's fine essay is what he clearly points out: outsized and seemingly boundless wealth today goes to those who engineer financial transactions, not those who make tangible things that benefit voters. So it makes sense that the likes of Sanders and Warren have wide appeal.
What's perhaps ironic is that in 2016, the combined votes of Trump and Sanders revealed a broad disaffection from the direction in which our country is heading. When one considers that both candidates, now including Warren, are each, in their own way, tapping into the resentment of those who feel as if they are part of some political "left behind" series playing out in American society, we should not be surprised.
All this leaves us with the question of whether either Sanders, Warren or perhaps Bloomberg can beat Trump at his own game. He's a master of deception, and of cynically harnessing antipathy toward the establishment. He's also has an incumbent's advantage with supporters who are firmly invested in his presidency.
The ultimate question is whether a sufficient number of voters feel that they can pay the literal price of a Sanders or Warren presidency, given that they already feel that they've paid what they perceive to be the price of a long history of establishment presidents.
"Warren stumbled badly, making herself a long shot for the nomination, by trying to appease supporters of Bernie Sanders. She endorsed proposals for radical health care reform that have almost no chance of becoming reality" Prof. Krugman, I think you have misread these events. Warren stumbled badly by not trying to appease Bernie Sanders supporters. Her polls started dropping when she backed off of implementing Med4all. Rather than trying to do it from the beginning, she made it a two stage plan, requiring two heavy lifts, which would be much more difficult than Bernie's approach, which is one heavy lift with a plan that phases in. Warren was actually trying to appeal to the moderates and that's why the progressives back away from her.
1
This is nonsense! Bernie has yet to define how his “one heavy lift” is going to be implemented and paid for in any meaningful way. The big “difficulty” with Elizabeth Warren’s recalibration is voters’ unrealistic expectation that there is a magic wand that can make M4A happen immediately. It’s a huge organizational problem, a major part of which is the SS/Medicare infrastructure - it’s years behind in user friendliness. Now, imagine millions trying to sign up at once - as a user of Medicare’s web site I can say this is a disaster waiting to happen.
This is a major logistical problem and it requires someone who will be organized and demand attention to detail. That someone is most assuredly not Bernie Sanders
1
Great column Paul! The focus has needed to be on the wasteful financial sector for a long time but the media seems to feel they have enough problems and don't want to shoot themselves in their financial foot.
Warren seems to be the best of all worlds in the Democratic party and I hope she still has a chance. In a Democratic administration I am sure she will be an enormous asset in any case but she belongs in the Whitehouse.
3
I really don't understand what Krugman means by saying:
>it is, I think, fair to ask how committed they would be in practice, and also whether they would squander their political capital on unwinnable fights, which is my big concern about Sanders.
Sanders has long been in unwinnable fights for decades, has he not? I need to be explained more.
Question for Dr. Krugman: How did we get to the point where financial companies account for 40% of all corporate profits in the United States? I read that the figure used to be about 15%. I'm not not sure that mergers and acquisitions alone could account for such a large shift.
As an observer of the political nomination process, I saw a very highly educated elite type group of people argue amongst themselves and not taking the opportunity to communicate to a population where only 33% or so have a college degree.
It was like a debate club arguing about how many angels on the head of a pin - while an angry mob is beating at the doors of the political institution.
Hopefully the debates will deal with what is bothering people and not who will come out of the Democratic fight club.
The Bloomberg ads do seem to deal with the issues facing the country - and are relatively simple to understand. Maybe that is why he rose so fast.
4
"It’s an extremely profitable business. But is it good for the economy? No."
Bloomberg is supplying an item some people deem valuable. Some enterprising individual will, at some point, provide a better solution. When that happens will you complain about that too, Paul?
"And here’s the thing: Financial reform, unlike health care, is an area in which it might make a big difference which Democrat becomes president."
Here's another thing, Paul. Financial reform is an area that is in Congress' wheel house first. If Dems don't get control of both houses of Congress and the White House you probably won't get all the "reforms" you heart desires.
Mike Bloomberg's less than stellar performance at the recent debate was a real shame because my friends on the right who voted for Trump were willing to vote for Bloomberg over Trump in 2020. Sanders & Warren will not get the independents and former Trump supporters because of their very expensive expansion of social programs.
4
Since money provides a major advantage (if not the advantage) in American life and politics, I expect Bloomberg to seriously contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Maybe a Bloomberg-Warren ticket? That would be interesting.
2
It's always a good thing to start the day by reading a Krugman column. Each, in its own way, shines a clear light on what matters most, and helps us to refocus. I started out thinking that Elizabeth Warren was the best candidate in the primary race because of her integrity, intelligence, and seemingly endless sources of energy for campaigning. Then, for several weeks, I lost that feeling, and wavered between Joe Biden and Bloomberg (drawn to each in turn because of reports that people of color around the country are likely to come out to vote for one of them and not for Warren). But, this column has reminded me of Warren's qualities, which I think are the ones most needed by a president. So, as always, thank you, Paul Krugman.
2
@Suzy Groden
I am working for Bernie Sanders at this moment but I'm beginning to lean toward Elizabeth Warren as the most effective candidate. Thanks for your comment.
It’s obvious that Krugman has not done his homework, once again. The Bloomberg terminal’s value isn’t simply getting prices fast, it’s the research and analytics that enable its subscribers to value a vast array of securities in real time so that they know what they are worth. As such, it plays a valuable role in capital markets.
With respect to the growth of financial markets in the 1980s, it wasn’t so much deregulation as it was the explosion of government debt that led to the ascendancy of trading on Wall Street. With so many government bonds outstanding, traders were in great demand. Krugman loves debt so he shouldn’t have a problem with this. But as one of the least prepared teachers when he was at Princeton, I’m not surprised he gets things wrong. By his own admission, he cobbles together his columns on the day that they are due.
2
I don't believe I am writing this but I am beginning to think I will vote for Ms Warren. Personally she turns me off--too intense, too much of a scold. But she is intense about the right things. When it comes to Bernie supporters I have to constantly ask them to 'name one thing he has accomplished in his decades in the senate and do you know who George McGovern is'. The Consumer Protection Bureau was a big deal and she got it done...of course destroyed by the Trump administration. I like the way she stuck up for Amy K too. She needs to turn some of her heat in Bernie's direction. He is a threat to her chances and to the country. I am a left of center independent but every one in that 'lane' I keep eliminating. Bloomberg has done a lot of good with his heaps of money. He's right on climate change, he has invested in minority businesses and job training, Emily's List and Planned Parenthood have honored his contributions and he is the only one who has stood firmly for gun control. But the guy was stiff as a board the other night and was unable to sell himself. Another thing if in a debate with Trump he starts stalking her from behind Elizabeth Warren will put him back in his place and hopefully beat him badly in the election.
Maybe movies like "Wall Street" and "The Big Short" have made millions of Americans more aware of the unsavory practices in our financial markets. Nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that the so-called 90 per cent remains largely ignorant about Wall Street's wheeling-and-dealing. Even after the Great Recession, how many of us can define "credit default swaps?" Within a paper democracy, the wolves of Wall Street have created a ruling oligarchy that lives by its own arcane language and practices, bolstered by tax "reforms" and un-enforced "regulations" that greatly advantage colossally rich investors over the rest of us. Curiously, despite all the talk from Sanders about socialist revolutions and paeans to small donors, we've heard relatively little from the Democratic candidates about this subject and its relentless widening of the income gap.
4
@Charles Michener
Sanders has been talking constantly for many years about the obscene and growing income inequality.
1
Paul, I think the democratic socialist wing America should get a shot. I see your concern about some of it not being politically realistic. Getting a chance to try is the only authentic way for the worldview to improve. I think democratic socialism + incremental improvement via participating in and being exposed to real world consequences sounds like a great process.
2
If we could only combine the brains and experience of both Bloomberg and Warren as a winning pair to take to the election. Both have extensive knowledge about Wall Street. Both want to fight climate change. Both understand there is danger for our country if people remain poor. Both are better people than Trump. All that would be necessary is for Bloomberg to apologize once more to Warren for making "old boys' club" comments about women, and Warren could forgive him. Together, they would be formidable.
4
And bore the electorate to death! Mr. Krugman doesn't seem to understand that what the American people want is what George Bush the Elder called "the vision thing". The reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she could never offer a reason for her being elected. The only Democratic candidate who has a vision and a clear and consistent ideology is Bernie Sanders.
1
@Michael Skadden
Warren has it. Kamala had it.
They just didn't fit Bernie's purity tests.
Loved Bloomberg calling out the socialist with three homes. Buttigieg has a point there as well.
It's so laughable when you really think about it. A career politician with nothing to show for and 3 homes, trying to lead a socialist revolution!
1
The notion that "Medicare for all will never happen, no matter who is elected," as if it is financially impossible to implement, given the inevitable lobbying power of drug and insurance companies over the "electablity" of visionary candidates (all said during Obamacare deliberations), demonstrates that most eyes are now well off the ball. How would universal health care be "paid for"? It isn't rocket science; obviously it would be by a more efficient and economical fiscal configuration as found in every other industrialized nation whose population enjoys better health and quality of life. The question everyone should be asking is, "Who is most committed to getting it done?"
4
I sent money to Warren early. Then she seemed to raise her hand on eliminating the insurance that most people have from their jobs, and I wrote her off as lost. Here's hoping she can find her way back (maybe with Mayor Pete's help) towards improving on Obamacare.
2
I am so disgusted with the effect of television on our electorate.
First, we now have an actual Reality Show Presidency, with the irony being that those so called "reality" shows on TV are all scripted, yet the Headliner of the United States appears to operate without any prescribed lines, direction, or plot other than his own stardom.
Secondly, the fact that most Americans vote on the basis of the ads they see on TV, or fandom in one of their preferred news outlets or competing teams (D vs R, Fox vs MSNBC) demonstrates a terrible lack of critical thinking on the part of the electorate who now view elections and governing as a "hard contact" team sport. The more blood, the more points awarded.
Third, the so called "debates" are nothing more than a contrived broadcast where candidates are urged to perform cat fights and attacks between themselves via the line of questioning pursued by the moderators. The old adage of "If it bleeds, it leads" still holds true for TV ratings.
Now all the howls from people who should be team mates, about one Democratic candidate "buying the election", and not a word about how ALL our elections are bought by somebody, and will be until we change our system of requiring candidates to "self finance" a battle that will cost them at least a BILLION dollars to compete.
We've become ungovernable and incapable of civil discourse, and the ratings of media giants soar. I hope we feel it was worth it for the entertainment value.
12
@Entera
"Idiocracy" here we come! If you haven't watched the movie, do so. It is not much of a movie per se, but the message is incredibly poignant and relevant to what is happening in this country today.
2
Accepting that Warren is both a financial expert but also extremely unlikely to become President this election, the question then becomes: How is Warren's expertise best employed in a different Democratic administration?
This is a difficult question to answer. You could make Warren the finance czar of the administration.Secretary of the Treasury or head of the SEC or something similar. However, Warren's presence is also useful in the Senate. She is a legislator and policy wonk by trade. Replacing Chuck Grassley with Warren on the Senate Finance committee might prove more beneficial. Of course, finance isn't Warren's only expertise either. Do we really want her focusing on financial regulation to the exclusion of everything else? Tough decision.
However, I think Democrats need to start thinking about answers now. Warren is a long shot at best and probably out. However, she is also extremely useful. John Kerry knocked the ball out of the park as Secretary of State. Clinton, not so much. Where does Warren fit best?
2
Thank you PK for voicing what I have thought about the financial miracle, the white collar business model: it’s parasitic, and it has cost us our leadership in the world economy. I have seen too many talented minds lured into the money skimming during my career. Our economy is not sustainable, and with Trump in charge it looks more like Russia’s everyday.
5
The events Krugman cites occurred due largely to the globalization of the economy, not because of banks. This is simply more myth making by Warren and Sanders. The Bloomberg news organization is arguably the most objective we have and an important part of our free press and Democracy. But because Bloomberg was so successful, he is attacked by the populist demagogues on the left. The Times really needs a less biased economist.
2
Really Paul, calling out the Bloomberg Terminal because a subscription is expensive and it gives real-time information faster than other sources?
I suppose I should only read the NYT print edition, instead of both the print and the digital versions, because accessing articles digitally before they appear in print gives me an unfair advantage over people who cannot afford a smart phone and the NYT subscription price.
Gosh, and I also subscribe to the WSJ, and that's an even more expensive subscription.
What about the fact that traders using the Bloomberg Terminal may trade more efficiently? What about the fact that some of those traders are executing trades for workers' pension funds.
You whiffed it Paul.
4
I don’t think the annual cost to the terminal itself was being used as part of the critique, but more that it has created the “arms race” that traders must buy into just to stay competitive. I view the terminal itself and the nano culture it elicits as the moral equivalent of steroids, slippery slope and all.
If you view the culture and practices of the financial sector as benign, that’s your prerogative, but I encourage you to not paper over our very recent history of catastrophe and to not fantastically believe the industry has been anywhere near reformed.
1
@NR
Completely agree with you.
Sorry Paul, when did you decide that knocking down efficiencies and productivity improvements is a bad idea, even in financial trading?
Wrong tree.
1
Thank you, Paul. Once again, you make so much sense in a clear and well written way. I decided on Elizabeth Warren a while back, and agree with you that she is the smartest person in the race.
8
Mr. Krugman deems Mr. Bloomberg to be guilty of the financial excess of the past 30 years because he provided a system for information sharing. That would surely implicate a lot of other people to, including the WSJ and the NYT, wouldn't it? If providing information is a sin, then he seem to implicate everyone who provides information that others use for malign purposes. Would Mr. Krugman also not be implicated because he wrote my economic text book in 1990s that outlined the financial system that people exploited? I think this is a dangerous road to take if the press and media become equal to those who mis-use the information that is reported.
3
The financial sector may not produce tangible goods, but who do you think provides the capital that those companies use to operate? Go ask a CEO if she thinks that the corporate debt market should go away.
The description in this article of what Michael Bloomberg has created, and what a Bloomberg terminal is itself, is highly simplified. Yes, it's used for trading, but it is also the most common communication tool among financial professionals, and one of the earliest news aggregators on the market. Bloomberg was a visionary and a leader, and we could do far worse than him as President.
I am a lifelong liberal Democrat and even I am tired of the vilification of personal and monetary success happening today. Isn't that supposed to be the American dream? Start from nothing, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of your labor? When did a ceiling get imposed on that success? Bloomberg has used his money to become an incredible philanthropist, supporting so many causes near and dear to liberals. Please stop eating our own and focus on the real goal of getting the toxic narcissist out of the White House.
8
By nominating another toxic narcissist?
And destroying the liberal movement of the Democratic Party?
No thanks.
The other problem here is that the big Wall Street banks operate with impunity. No one ever went to jail for the 2008 fiasco and many of the CEO’s who led companies like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns into bankruptcy and companies like Goldman Sachs to the verge of bankruptcy are living very comfortably. The rest of us who saw our 401k’s evaporate and our jobs disappear forever are left to deal with the carnage. Wall Street, with the help of our government, effectively socialized their losses and privatized their gains. No matter who wins this election I do not see any of that changing.
2
"Warren stumbled badly, making herself a long shot for the nomination, by trying to appease supporters of Bernie Sanders."
Wrong. Warren began her downhill slide when she tacked to the right, turning her "Medicare for all" into a spruced up public plan.
But we Sanders supporters appreciate her sending progressives into our camp.
I am getting tired of being told that we will never be able to have a single-payer health care system. Perhaps Sanders' plan is more generous than a first pass at this right will produce, but that is a different matter than arguing that the USA will never join the ranks of nations who consider health care a right. Show me your budget and I'll show you your priorities. We can make this a priority. I'm sick of the naysaying. Mr. Krugman is often right about things, but he has gotten this one wrong. It's not realism, it's not being pragmatic, it's pessimism.
1
@JohnB
The uncomfortable truth is often described as "pessimism."
@JohnB Nobody is saying that we will never have single-payer health care. They are saying that the next Congress will not pass single-payer health care. That is fairly evident.
3
@Ernie Cohen yes, but midterms happen, you need to be positioned, not wait on Congress
GIve them something to run on.
Warren has approached running for the presidency the way one would approach the selection process for the CEO of a major company. She offers an array of improvements that could be adopted with realistic ways of achieving them if she is given proper organizational support.
Bernie, on the other hand, has approached running for the presidency the way one often sees kids running for a high school student government presidency. He makes promises of what the kids would love, like no Friday classes and ten cent donuts in the cafeteria all day long without being troubled about how they can be realized.
6
As for Bloomberg's poor debate performance: Anyone, no matter how cool and polished, would be staggered by Warren's opening punch of defamation that couldn't possibly be answered in the debate format. That's the problem with these debates: they don't offer much useful information, and the moderators want to stir up a good show. How many more times must we hear candidates endlessly debate healthcare plans that, even if financially feasible, stand no chance of passage into law? It appears these debates are dashing any gravitas the candidates claim. Their ideas by now come across as mere chatter. Too many candidates from the beginning, and too many debates. It wasn't just Bloomberg who was staggered in this debate; the whole field windmilled with sometimes churlish attacks. Frankly, anyone who remembers the great Ali's famous boxing strategy might think that Trump has the advantage of "rope a dope."
6
"It’s an extremely profitable business. But is it good for the economy? No."
I don't think the point is that Bloomberg has done something great for the economy. It's that Bloomberg has a skill set that has made him rich.
Whether that skill set is helpful to the presidency is another question. Not whether his skill set has helped the economy.
Probably someone who is rich from pro sports can claim to have helped the economy, but the issue isn't whether he has helped the economy or is rich, but his skill set.
3
I disagree with Krugman's thesis that the Bloomberg terminal was bad and an enabler. Share trading for retail customers is now $0, bond trading is far more transparent and cheaper for all investors, and financial research costs (even for retail investors and their agents, ie.e., brokers is faster and more accurate.
You should look to the NYSE and other exchanges as enablers with co-location, high speed trading and alogorithmic driven trading as the problem.
5
Warren would be a better candidate if she maintained a more serious, focused composure to match her policy recommendations. When she does maintain a more focused presentation she is very effective. She needs to smile less while showing her determination to get things done. In a word, act more Presidential, be confident in those heels Ms. Warren and don't overly gloat about tagging Bloomberg with things that happened 3 decades ago. I am tired of the me 2 movement's drama queen antics over what men did long ago. Even Obama evolved on gay rights much to his credit and that was in 2013 let alone 1990. In the financial industry workplace you had all kinds of men, good and bad in terms of interactions with women. Those things don't happen anymore as it is something we have evolved on and eliminated. Warren should promote the policy differences, her focus on real family values and fairness. She should focus on what ails America - as a country we are out of balance, tax reform is needed, tax policy favoring the rich must be reversed, government has been shrunk too much to protect us and unions have been marginalized. A more competitive economy where labor has more power is better for the long term economy. We need to lift the small boats now as opposed to the failure of "socialism for the rich" Republican policies. These are the things to focus on. It reduces fear. Then we can address climate change, healthcare and the rest. Warren is the compromise between Sanders and Buttigieg.
4
That a significant percentage of Sanders' supporters are very young with fewer life experiences may not be a coincidence. While I support most of Sanders' positions, which are not appreciably different from Warren's, I believe her to be the one more capable of turning more of those positions into demonstrable results.
Rhetoric is fine to a point. But Warren has backed up each of her positions with a concrete plan and with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has demonstrated the ability to execute a plan to a successful conclusion in a hostile environment.
7
@Ron Aaronson
"...the ability to execute a plan to a successful conclusion in a hostile environment." Therein lies the reason we should be united and strong for Warren. But unfortunately we are not reasonable people.
2
This is a spot on article. I rarely agree with everything you say but these concepts are valid and what you discuss is in fact a threat to the country.
The financialization of the the economy is more aptly stated as the financialization of the country itself.
Globilization and the corporate strategy to lower all costs at any cost is what changed the American economy. Trade deals that encouraged export of American jobs and manufacturing marginalized "making things" as you put it. Wall Street filled the void while the tech economy was being created. Wall Street will pay the ultimate price as the tech revolution eats away at Wall Street tasks.
This is not a discussion for the light of heart and the country, Democrat, Republican or Independent will not be led by political slogans to get the country through this extraordinary period of change and advancement.
Please tell me we have better people in this country to lead then those on a debate stage or even the current President. It is exactly these type challenges that have been addressed over time that has created the most powerful country in the history of the World. Mrs Warren may be a person to start the discussion or even try to address it but please tell me there are people who can actually understand the issue.
Paul, you are a smart man. Understandably a Democrat, but please take the side of the country that you seemed to have done here to assist leading this country away from catastrophic decision making.
1
Warren is exactly where she needs to be to get all her policies passed in a Democratic Congress.
2
My first Presidential election was my vote against Nixon. I was filled with ideals.
I liked Bill Clinton a lot but only after I saw him as President, orginially i would joke “ 8 years earlier he’d be considered a Republican “ because of his triangulation. But then I learned that idealism ( Carter) is less effective than ability to lead.
I loved Obama and thought it would bring in a new era , until I watched McConnell start to dismant our democracy, slowly.
I was all in for Hillary and believed, she would not only win, but she would be a great president, running circles around the likes of McConnell and holding her own against Kim and Putin.
And then...trump..the possible end of democracy
We need , not just an idealist ( Warren) but someone that can both beat trump and go forward for the next four years. I would choose Bloomberg for that. Warrens ideas and ideals could be well served in a Democrat senate, then the presidency in 2024
We need to win 2020, not dream. If trump wins again three may be no 2024 ....
6
American Idol like debates are a disservice to the nation and tend to exacerbate making choices for the wrong reasons. I really learned little about how the candidates would execute their duties as the most powerful office holder in the land. Much of the blame goes to the networks whose lust for profits induces them to play for the conflict, the gotcha moments, the simplistic. Questions are trite and beg for talking point answers. As important as a candidates view on healthcare, example, is the need to know how they would ride their proposal through Congress where the real debate happens. I'd have law school and poly sci profs create the questions aimed at making the debaters demonstrate how they think on their feet and outline WH strategies to get things done. We may have avoided a Donald J Trump with a better format for he would have been exposed as having no critical thinking skills. Instead a base was galvanized who loved his Don Rickles approach to debates.
6
@Al Singer I could not agree more. Just want to add they also need more than 75 seconds to answer.
1
This piece has brought to the fore something that is not adequately addressed in the the debates or associated punditry, namely: COMPETENCE TO BE PRESIDENT. Trump certainly lacks it, and Warren’s fellow candidates have not provided evidence of it. Warren, as the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, demonstrated concrete substance that endows her policy proposals with credibility.
She is the only candidate who has demonstrated the ability to analyze complex problems that vex so many Americans in their daily lives, and bring foreword proposed solutions. The important distinction between her and Sanders, especially, is that she has shown she could actually assemble a coalition to implement those solutions.
9
I wish Warren would focus more on problems than plans. She's great at articulating the structural problems that allow corporations and billionaires to rig the game in their favor, and she should continue to do so.
And as good as her plans might be, no-one wants "an elite Harvard professor" to tell them how to fix their problems - they want to be engaged in fixing the problems themselves. They want confidence that the person in charge of fixing things can do so. Trump promised that he could, without caring if that was true. It worked well enough to get elected.
Warren's apparent weakness is that she believes her intellect and energy are sufficient to make her electable. Her passion about problems on the stage Wednesday night may give her enough lift to test that "flaw,"
1
It would not surprise me in the least to find out that Republican strategists are somehow behind the the fact that debate moderators just keep feeding the Medicare-For-All questions to the Democratic candidates at the debates. Over and over and over. Why? Because the continual discussion of this issue is not helping ANY of the Dem candidates. As Krugman says, they can debate the issue all day and it is not going to change the trajectory of what will finally make it through Congress, no matter who gets elected president. Knowing that all the Democrats are united in working toward health care for all should be sufficient to differentiate Democrats clearly from Republicans, who want to eliminate it. Stop the pointless catfights, and move on.
7
Democratic voting so far shows two major trends:
(1) reluctance of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire to accept socialist solutions.
(2) high early voter turnout in the diverse state of Nevada.
Reasonable early conclusions are:
(1) Elizabeth Warren is smart to campaign as a capitalist who reigns in the abuses of capitalism. She should also adopt Bernie Sanders' latest observation that President Trump is the candidate favoring socialist welfare payments to large corporations.
(2) High voter turnout of diverse populations augurs well for all the Democratic candidates.
1
Many view Bloomberg as a knight on a white horse because of his billions first and foremost. But remember this: he has pledged his wealth to support the Democratic nominee even if it is not himself.
So, we can have the power of the purse and the plans and aspirations of Warren together if we just support her. For my dime, I would support the all female ticket of Warren-Klobuchar.
Go Liz!
4
Paul you are a voice of sanity in the wilderness. I hope people are listening.
3
It's been surprising to me that Warren doesn't talk about her creation of the CFPB. It's her crowning achievement (and she wasn't even an elected official!)
6
Has financialization been the real problem or is health care costs? Healthcare now costs our economy 18% of GDP, $3.5 Trillion, and it continues to grow faster than inflation. Our giant costs deliver only mediocre care, push thousands into bankruptcy or penury, leaves millions uncovered.
A solution that brought those costs down to 11% of GDP, about what France pays, would save $1 Trillion/yr. Just what we need to pay for Warren's superb programs and give everyone a raise. And you'll still be able to get a mortgage to buy a house.
2
I had no idea Mr. Bloomberg was the one who created the computer system that gives those paying for it minutes of early data so financial wheelers and dealers could beat each other out on financial deals and make fortunes. It seems unlikely such a man would do anything to reign in the financialization of our economy. He seems like a ruthless guy who imposes a lot of pain on those who work for him, as well as any community he has control of (stop and frisk). Do we need more of that in the White House? As for Sen. Warren, her staunch support of and work for the average guy and gal has impressed me for a decade. I have wanted to vote for her for President since 2016. She has the skills to negotiate for fairer treatment of The People on all levels and the drive to see it through. She has my primary vote. I hope to vote for her in the general election. If she fails to get the nomination, IMHO that will be because she is a lady. The things I have read about her, with the exception of one or two articles, stink of unconscious sexism (she isn't allowed to be angry or intense--where is her smile). My consolation is that the DEM candidates are a deep bench, and I can vote for any of them with a clear conscience in November, although if I have to vote for Bloomberg, it will be after a large flagon of whiskey.
5
@TDHawkes That's not what Bloomberg terminals do. PK is factually incorrrect.
1
Paul Krugman shows how out of touch he is with the vast majority of voters, and why his commentary here is off the mark.
His desire to shift debate away from "Medicare for All" demonstrates this detachment.
The cost of healthcare, medical debt, and whether or not healthcare is a basic human right is an issue that directly impacts then overwhelming number of voters.
The "financialization" of our economy, while certainly an issue that we should all be concerned about, is abstract to most voters, and the ONLY candidate who really addresses this (and Wall Street excesses, and wealth inequality) is Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps Krugman should dig deeper, and look at the devastating impact of Wall Steet hedge funds wreaking havoc in healthcare, as they finance mergers and acquisitions of hospital systems and pharmaceutical companies (which subsequently gouge consumers), and profit off of ridiculously high health insurance premiums, deductibles & co-pays (while they go out of their way to deny insurance claims).
Krugman might then realize that Medicare for All is the ONLY way to address his concerns about "financialization", in a way that the average voter can recognize as a direct benefit to them.
He might also then realize that Bernie Sanders is the ONLY candidate who is willing to take on Wall Street excesses in the broader sense, as well.
I was glad to see Warren return to more authentic self. I have always been a fan, but worried she was trying to compete in Bernie's lane. Warren has her own lane. She comes prepared and ready to fight for what she believes in. Whether she wins the nomination or not, working Americans have an ally in her.
14
Well, this column is another sign that the latest gambit is the re-consideration of Elizabeth Warren. But not a helpful -- or long-lasting -- one: Warren would do worse against Trump than Sanders. As usual, Mr. Krugman ignores the obvious: Amy is the only one with a prayer -- not much of a prayer, but a prayer.
1
My question is why is the media ignoring Biden who performed really well in the debate. Biden was by far best on health care, the number one issue to Americans. It was talked about extensively yet there is no discussion of that discussion in media coverage, is that because Biden won. Biden was also the only one to hit Sanders, attacking him for his opposition to the 2007 Imigration bill that if passed would have made 11,000,000 Americans citizens, a big issue in Nevada. Biden was also very hard on Bloomberg but in a way that makes more likely Bloomberg will put his money behind a nominated Biden than Warren. Most importantly, Biden continues to best in polls against Trump.
Ignoring a candidate is often the media's kiss of death.
1
Trump won the last presidential election with a vision of an america that needed walls to keep immigrants out, tariffs to help american businesses and tax cuts to stimulate the economy. America in fact did not need any of these things but it struck an emotional chord in those that are now his base. Trump demonstrated that it is not fact and workable plans that get you elected , it is emotionally connecting that that brings the voters out.
Bernie Sanders has repeatedly spoken of " heath care for all" , a vision that americans can emotionally resonate with. Americans are anxious about being uninsured or underinsured, and those that have insurance are nervous about losing it. Even those that have insurance have suffered emotional strain as premiums , deductibles and co-pays go through the roof.
Bloomberg calls himself a manager and Warren has tried hard to protect the consumer, but these are not visions that bring out voters. When americans talk about the economy they speak of jobs but also an emergency room bill not covered leaving them owing thousands of dollars, at a time when they are struggling with static wages and some overburdened with student debt. Health care has become the most important visceral issue of the democratic party. How "health care for all" can be accomplished can be determined at a later date, but first Americans should be given the opportunity to vote in favor of that vision and in this Bernie is right to give it voice.
Bernie would make a great Senate majority leader. Especially compared to Pass the Buck Chuck.
3
Scott Adams rightly points out that, if Bloomberg is elected, we will effectively lose the image of the Republic as something that can' t be bought purely with cash. Whereas if Trump wins, the only thing that we lose for the next four years is our boredom.
Dear Professor Krugman, How do you account for the financialization of the economy? Deregulation is not a sufficient answer, because it implies that the demand for more financial services was always there, just restrained by regulations. Is that so? Or were there more fundamental changes in the economy that created both the demand and the supply (granted, Wall Street will always produce what will sell.) ? All that brain power and energy directed at only marginally useful production seems an enormous waste.
1
Much has been said about Bloomberg and most of it said with the brand "billionaire" next to his name as a modifier, But isn't that the point of capitalism...to make people rich? To elevate one's financial status using a system adopted by the ruling class long ago and made the unofficial law of the land is not evil, it's evolution... it's the inevitable result, in fact the desirable result of the system which created it.
A financial advisor explained rich people this way. For the most part it's luck. They happened to be standing on the tracks when they were hit by the money train.
On one hand we live by an economic system that encourages accumulation and on the other hand accumulation is derided mostly by people who don't have as much. This is a scary contradiction and has no place in a Presidential election unless one is espousing an end to capitalism. I haven't heard that from any Denocrat, including the pretend Independent with 3 houses.
4
Many factors have led to the emergence of run-away economic inequality and consequent legal and political inequality in America, but the root cause of most of these factors has been the financialization of the economy. Regaining public control over the finance industry is thus urgent for America's national security and prosperity as well as, and more importantly, the prosperity, freedom and political rights of the American people. But if you think the fight to provide decent, affordable health care to the 51% of Americans who are not covered by "employer provided healthcare" is going to be stiff just wait until we start taking the candy jar away from the titans of finance! Man - or woman - up! It's got to be done if we and our children and grandchildren and country are to have decent future.
2
There have been a number of new reports of individuals receiving large medical bills. A woman with a pre-mature birth of her child was given an 800,000 dollar bill, a family who’s child had a rare disease had a 200,000 dollar bill and recently an article in this paper of the family that got the 140,000 dollar bill. In each case the involved people had insurance. What other country has healthcare system that would ever dream of giving such huge bills. These may be extreme cases but more and more individuals are being presented with larger medical expenses because of increased co payments and deductibles. Warren is right, the time to fix it is now. The question is how and this deserves are larger part of the debates.
7
Large bills are the norm. My hip repair after falling from a ladder was $400,000. However, Medicair only approved $44,000 and together with supplementary insurance, paid all. I paid nothing. The huge list billing is very strange and most people probably do not know it, because they do not check their EOB,s (Explanation Of Benefits).
2
Dr. Krugman's column illustrates the glaring omission of most economic issues from these debates. Asking the candidates about the effects of the financialization of the U.S. economy is way above the head of moderators who have no grounding in U.S. economic history.
In her closing statement, Sen Warren mentioned another important economic issue that has not been discussed in these debates - the role of unions. If the moderators continue to ignore economic issues, the candidates will have to bring them up themselves.
7
Warren is a lost cause. It was self-inflicted. One of the others will get the nomination. And it's a delusion that " Medicare for all" will not play a big role. I'm not naive enough to know you can't throw 180 million people off their private insurance and inevitably reduce my benefits in the Medicare I like just the way it is. Because it has little chance of passing (but who knows?) doesn't get her and Bernie off the hook. They said it. They own it. Warren didn't help herself by defending huge corporations for big money, pretending to be a Native American for academic advancement and remaining a Republican until age 47.
2
I must disagree with the professor's dismissal of universal health care retorting with the Lao Tzi first step proverb which I believe was taken with Obama's Affordable Care Act. Sanders can inspire people to vote and people voting can remove Trump and McConnell et al from the halls of power, hallways they have obstructed for far too long. I think it used to be called patriotism, faith in our democracy, faith in the American people.China is not very popular at the present time but that thousand mile journey is just beginning with the election of Senator Sanders.
3
Medicare for All: I have been waiting for it since I came to this country, in 1966, from a country that had it. Medicare for All is coming, no matter what "experts" and politicians will tell you.
And it will be there when Elizabeth Warren (whom I support) or Bernie Sanders (my second choice) is elected.
None of the three B's (Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg) will enact it, mostly because they, or their donors, do not really want it, no matter what they (the three B's) say to get your vote.
Simply dismiss all three of them and vote Warren or Sanders; they care and will work for you, not for big companies or whomever is financing their campaign.
I am now on Medicare, because of my age, and I do hope to see all of you getting Medicate-for-All before I die.
18
Good thoughts! I would not be surprised, though, to find Warren with a prominent cabinet in a Sanders administration, where she would have authority to do the things that Krugman suggests.
After all, although they are rhetorically different, Sanders and Warren have a lot in common in practice.
8
What they should have been focusing on is corruption and the"Citizens United" ruling. Our system is broken and utterly corrupted by corporate influence. It should not take billions to run for President even as many of us are living a on a subsistence level.We should have publicly funded elections with guaranteed equal media time and bans of private money and PACs. Corporate fronts like ALEC and armies of lobbyists should not be writing our laws. So far, the only candidates talking about this are Sanders and Warren and the DNC see them as enemies.
8
Hillary Clinton talked about it all the time, for all the good it did her! Stop acting like Sanders and Warren are the only two who want to fix things.
1
Ah, yes, if only the nation's electorate were like a college classroom, full of thoughtful, rational, diligent listeners, then Warren would likely be a shoo-in. Tragically, the electorate, too large a segment of it anyway, reacts mainly from raw emotion, especially fear. Trump and the GOP know this, which is why he "won", and how he might well do so again. I believe it's high time for the Democratic candidates, every one of them, to appeal to the real and, I have to use the only word - existential, dangers of a Trump second term. If that doesn't cause fear nothing will.
8
@Michael: Fear and misogyny. Listen for the code words: shrill, hysterical, schoolmarm, nerd, manly man, unattractive, etc.
Warren is a capitalist who sees market failures and proposes a government remedy that works. Warren is a capitalist who knows free markets don’t work for everything. Her instincts are sound and based in reality and compassion.
Sanders’s instinct is that government is better at everything. He puts a generous welfare state at the front and center, but in his personal life and rhetoric he has nothing good besides government and mass politics. He’s so busy denying he’s a socialist-type socialist that I think he’s lying to himself at this point.
Bloomberg’s instincts are to reflexively defend a system that he knows, intellectually, fails from time to time,
6
Oh, and Trump’s instincts and morals are those of a crime boss.
So many complain that Medicare for all would be prohibitively expensive - how come - lots of other countries have similar plans that are working really well for a lot cheaper than ours and their people are living longer happier lives according to many surveys
14
@Russell ***********
And, though the media ignore it, every analysis shows in detain that it would save us millions of dollars and cost less per person than insurance does now.
1
Since the electorate choose candidates by superficial criteria, rather than by policies and ideas Warren is at a disadvantage.
At least with Bloomberg we know where his money is coming from.
2
Although historical quotes are often cherry-picked, Adam Smith had a point worthy of consideration:
"The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public”
From: "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." Volume 1 of 2 . This consideration applies to Trump but also fits with Bloomberg.
6
I don't know if Mr. Krugman will ever read this, given so many other prior reader comments, but this article is very insightful, informative and too the point. As they say these days, "It resonates with me." Thanks, Mr. Krugman!
4
Thank you for pointing out that much of financial business is not at all helpful to the economy or to the American people. Bloomberg has done nothing with his business to contribute to society (although I'm glad he's contributing to causes working on climate change). Overall, he has made it more difficult for the regular person to invest in the market. And has used his richness bragging rights to be mayor and put thousands of people of color in prison, tearing apart families. Why do we revere people like this? Because they 'got one' on us?
7
Financialization is something for nothing. Short term gains rather long term growth. Borrowing rather than creating. Debt accumulation rather debt control. This is a picture of destruction not building.
10
I appreciate Mr Krugman's insights on many topics. Thanks. As to today's column, I wish Mr Bloomberg, who is not too much older than I am, would say at the next debate, "The America of my childhood had many noble values: justice, equal opportunity, support for the underdog, freedom of expression. But as a white, heterosexual male growing up in America, I also learned some prejudices that led me to take some actions of which I'm not proud. Unlike our current president, I've learned from those errors, and as president, I will do my best to build a country that cherishes the noble values of my childhood at the same time that we seek to overcome the prejudices that led me to do things of which I am not proud. I invite everyone to join me in this quest.
6
I think Warren's campaing is finally getting momentum .
She is committed not only with financial control in Usa , but it's impact around the world's finance
3
I'd welcome PK's analysis of Bloomberg's Wall Street reform plan, announced earlier this week and which received virtually no coverage.
A centerpiece of his plan is a transaction tax on all transactions, including stocks, bonds and payments on derivative contracts, and that it would be phased in gradually starting at 0.02%, according to the proposal released Tuesday. He would also support measures such as setting a speed limit to curb harmful types of trading.
I believe only Warren has proposed a transaction tax, but in any case, the revenue generated would be huge. Bloomberg's plan specifies that that revenue would be earmarked for infrastructure and climate change initiatives.
I guess my point is that even PK can fall into the trap of denouncing a self-made man for having the gall of creating a business that is thee backbone of commerce worldwide, and now is advocating a policy that would at least in part go against the very business he built.
4
Granted their are some bad actors involved in Finance that should be locked up post haste. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. What about all the funding for bridges, roads, hospitals, non profits and cutting edge companies that are the envy of the world. Unlike some wall street wheeler dealers, Amazon employees 700,000 people and is hiring. AND, with the death of the defined benefit retirement plans, 401k and 403 plans are the basis for most people's retirement funds. AND Warren and Sanders want to tax every transaction thus taxing our retirement plans? Nothing is easy these days.
1
The debate was disgraceful. They should have all been railing on Trump and not each other. The only reason to attack each other is ego, i.e., the desire to win. But the overriding desire should be to beat Trump - hence not to take each other down. Warren was the most aggressive and critical. To me this was a terrible turn off and sign of failing character in the face of ego. Let's face it, their policies are more similar than different with the bigger difference being in opposition to the republicans. They are killing the party. Klobuchar is a woman I can back who doesn't constnatly disparage. Yes, Bloomberg has faults but he is competent and I would vote for him over Warren.
6
Let me say I will vote for ANY Democratic nominee b/c I despise Trump. With that said, I thought the CNN talking heads clearly showed they were all DNC establishment people who were only interested in protecting Warren and trashing Bloomberg.
I thought Bloomberg did fine and the other candidates appeared extremely desperate with their wild attacks. Worse yet, the moderators were HORRIBLE. Despite the repeated attacks against Bloomberg, at least half the time they never gave Bloomberg a chance to respond. Instead, we had to sit through ridiculous discussions about whether Klobuchar remembered a name and we had to listen to Buttigieg attack Klobuchar for this ridiculous issue.
Frankly, Bloomberg showed great poise under pressure and his unflappable demeanor and sometimes refusal to respond to some of the attacks showed a steady hand.
I may like Klobuchar's policies more, and again, I will vote for ANYBODY who wins the Democratic nomination - Bernie, Warren - whoever. However, I have no problem supporting Bloomberg - a guy who has overwhelmingly supported Democrats and has actual progressive ideas that have a chance of passing.
9
Hillary spent twice as much as Trump. If it was only money she would be President. Bloomberg is spending most of his money on the same message she delivered: "Donald Trump is bad." We have seen this movie and it has a bad ending. The only candidate that has a message that will get people to vote is Sanders. Bloomberg is out of his depth.
4
Bloomberg can beat Trump. Trump is petrified of Bloomberg rightly so.
Sanders and Warren have alienated many voters, I’m one.
I want a business person, and politician to run the country. That’s Bloomberg.
Bloomberg did not fail. He succeeded in the debate. He was smart not to come in like a tiger, to be accused of this or that.
He listened, the others were a hysterical outrage.
5
Mr Krugman,
As you state, Warren did stumble badly, but not "by trying to appease supporters of Bernie Sanders."
She did just the opposite. She decided to go after Bernie personally, with claims of his sexism and with claims that Bernie called her a liar. Those were claims that could help neither her nor Bernie nor any progressivism they might share. They were acts of irrationally lashing out because she was either personally offended or was slipping in the polls. Either way, they showed poor judgment.
Those acts of poor judgment were a continuation of another act of poor judgment: letting Trump get under her skin about her supposed Native American heritage, which she would counter with a DNA test, thereby offending the Native American community.
It doesn't matter what policy positions Warren and Sanders may share. Warren has shown herself to be thoughtless in times of pressure, and that is an important distinction between her and Bernie.
"...a president who is both personally corrupt and so obviously a friend to fraudsters"
To add, a president with better 'debating' skills than either Bloomberg or Warren.
And in the 'financial era', where people 'got rich through wheeling and dealing', the public probably shifted their 'perceptions about successful men' and maybe Trump is a reflection of that shift of perception.
Jerry Springer started in politics and then took his act to television. Now the act has bounced back to politics. But the problems we're dealing with require the Dick Cavett or Walter Cronkite approach. Instead, the candidates all hear the audience yelling "Jerry, Jerry" and start clawing each other. Pretty pathetic. Can you imagine Ike and Adlai acting like this? Or even Kennedy and Nixon? It's not about what the candidates did, it's about who they are...and what they need to be. We need candidates who can elucidate our common interests, outline workable plans to tackle our most pressing problems and generate enthusiasm about our shared responsibilities for our shared futures. I really don't care if they sold steaks or leased terminals, as long as they can effectively galvanize the country into unity - a healthy respect for our history, an ability to make the complex comprehensible and a healthy dollop of good humor to lighten our hearts. And I'm seeing no one among the candidates who comes close.
1
My choice for President is Elizabeth Warren. I read about her when she was advocating for the CFPA. She understands the financialization issue very well. Yet the debate format doesn't really allow her to shine in the way I know she can. She really needs room to actually lay out her ideas and plans. I like Bernie in many ways but he comes across as yelling one trick pony. I think some male Trump voters could be attracted by him. Much of this is due to the ridiculous debate format. I have a lot of fears that a woman cannot be elected and in spite of machinations at the--let me say, corrupt DNC, I feel that the party is shooting itself in the foot. If Trump is elected again, I'm moving to Mexico and becoming a citizen.
1
Yes, Wall St. will no doubt aim a water cannon of money at any progressive candidate the Democrats dare pick.
But as she clearly demonstrated last night, Warren is uniquely talented to turn that cannon back against them. And her track record proves it.
The Democrats would be foolish not to make her their nominee.
4
Warren really will get things done. Things the plutocratic class in this country don’t want done.
As importantly, she proved resoundingly in the last debate that she’d have the fight and verve and imagination to deal with a scurrilous bully like Donald Trump in a confrontation.
We really should be seeing her for what she is, the real moderate alternative to Sanders, for those still brainwashed to be scared by booga booga socialism. Which unfortunately is still a lot of (mostly old) people.
Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders, I’m in. It’s what this country, and the world, needs, and soon.
1
Despite his obligatory snipes at Universal Healthcare and Bernie, Krugman is right on in his diagnosis of the corrosive effect the "financialization" of the economy. We took a wrong turn around 1980, and the chickens from that have come home to roost.
Whether its Bernie or Warren, the Democrats need a candidate who is willing to state this awful truth, and summon the public will to DO something about it. Push the pendulum away from its push to Monopolistic, Greedy Pirate Economics.
2
To all the Democrats who are looking for the person who can beat Trump, he arrived last night. Bloomberg can beat Trump because Trump has already made it clear he will not show up for "rigged" debates. And no one in their right mind would show up for a debate hosted by FOX. Bloomberg's ads are showing how the 2020 election will be won. Bloomberg has enough money to flood America with ads. Bloomberg knows Trump, who truly is a terrible debater, will not risk any debates. To believe that Trump can stand on any stage in a room not filled with his supporters and spout the nonsense he spews out is delusional - Trump is simply not accomplished in any skill other than that of telling lies. We've seen it become an epidemic for three years but it's also become clear he has no message to anyone but the poor souls he has already conned. It's time for him to move his circus show to another country - I am sure Putin will embrace him with open arms. My first choice for the Dems nominee is Warren. She is the real thing and would be a great president. Unfortunately, in 2016 our country was invaded by a pernicious quest for power, financed by deep-pocketed Republicans and although the saying is old, we need to fight fire with fire. Bloomberg was a good mayor in the largest city in the country and knows how to govern. And we need him to reach deep in his pockets to stop the GOP in the Senate and in the White house. Tis darkest before the dawn.
5
Worst debate ever. Where were the questions about our 14 trillion dollar deficit or the real global warming, or our presence still in the Mideast or the fact Trump sent a budget with cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security? Or how about that cheesy wall on the border that can be climbed over or the wind knocks over. What about the environmental law's that Trump rolled back? All we got were a bunch of whiny finger pointing about who did what way back when. We deserve our time and money back. Big Fail.
2
Oh, those darn Sanders supporters!
They seem to want a candidate who promises to fight for all the things Paul claims to want! Except, when it comes to the fighting, Paul would rather surrender immediately.
Republicans seem to have a bit more stomach for the fight, which may be why they have succeeded in driving the country so far to the right in the past few decades, while Democrats watch in slack jawed surprise.
Pro tip: fight for what you want. You might actually succeed! For evidence, ask a Republican.
1
Can we add a selection to the Democratic ballot? ALL OF THE ABOVE. If you put all these candidates together, they add up to the president we are looking for. So short of being able to do that, who presents the best case? Whose arguments make the most sense? Who seems to have YOUR back? All these candidates have the same goal: redistribution of wealth. It really is a matter of degree and a matter of whether we will pick the pocket of the wealthy or do a violent shakedown in an alley somewhere. The candidates that want to pick the wealthy's pocket are 'satisfied' when all they find are a set of keys in that pocket. They shake their heads and say "Geez, I thought I would find lots of money here. You are free to go". The shakedown crowd , like Bernie, don't stop looking until they find what they are looking for. They know it's there. The voters are tired of all this. Trump likes to shoot people on Fifth Ave. Bernie gets support because he wants to hold the gun to the wealthy's head and get them to empty all their pockets. Trump doesn't lose a single vote for what he does. Neither should Bernie.
Mr. Krugman,
A few things I would like to know:
Do you think when the next bubble bursts and the greater recession hits that there will be enough money or value in the government coffers to pull off another financial bailout?
Or, will the huge deficits Trump and the Republicans are manifesting (and will continue growing until 2024) put the country in too great a hole from which to dig out?
And, of course, why shouldn’t billionaires be president from now until the Democracy falls? After citizens United the super rich (and the Russian Oligarchs) are running the show anyway, aren’t they?
Yes, the 1980’s and Reaganomics really started the super rich greedy class growth didn’t it? The harsh beginning of the end for Unions and worker empowerment - remember the Air Traffic Controllers?
Also, please remember, wasn’t it
Clinton, and Summers, and Greenspan, oh my, who ended Glass - Steagall?
Isn’t Greenspan a real Ayn Randian sleaze-ball?
2
What really matters is dumping Trump. Looks less and less likely with the grandmas and grandpa’s running against him.
Bernie Sanders is not exactly starving. He is a millionaire and a bit hypocritical. He tells others how to live while earning lots of money. Why should we even listen to anything he has to say?
2
It is corruption, fraud and excesses that moves me to support SPW. And I trust her to neutralize their influence on society. If there is one person who can put the swamp back on a balanced path it is SPW. We seem to let those that use corruption, fraud and excesses to feed off our society move freely without examination or repercussion for what they do. We treat them with awe and envy like the sly flim flam man and trump is what we get for it, trump and many others like him. It's time for these flim flamers to pay the price for the havoc and chaos that they inflict on our society. They are domestic abusers for they abuse the domestic tranquility of our Society.
Warren is the Democrats' Phoenix. Pundits had her dead in the water after New Hampshire but the way she undressed Bloomberg was spectacularly surgical and should she capture the nomination that's exactly what she'll do to Trump, if he makes the mistake of stepping on a debate stage with her.
2
Is it not so that when you attack your primary opponent on very personal terms that you also alienate voters who have a sympathetic view of him. You harden your base, but do not broaden it? Is it now the only way to do politics? They are dividing society, not connecting it. Why can’t they agree that even Bloomberg would be helpful, why do they have to paint him as a devil?
1
Sir, I am not an economist so would not comment on the judgement of Bloomberg or Warren !
But as I watched one hour of the debate I was thoroughly disgusted by most of the Candidates.
Their main goal should have been to go after trump but Warren, Biden and Bernie all went after Bloomberg instead.
Those three did not wait for the questions, screaming after each other while interrupting .
It was a total pandamonium.
trump is drooling at his mouth to witness the infighting.
Bernie Sanders is not the answer but Bloomberg is.
Our main goal should be to make trump a onetime President, is it not ?
I am more and more inclined to vote for Michael Bloobberg, If he wins he will immediately go for work instead of designing how to enrich himself.
3
I waded through this entire article and am still not sure what you are accusing Michael Bloomberg of.
Mike was ahead of his time and being a visionary has made him a fortune -- an honest fortune. He accurately spotted the importance of data and its expedient delivery. His products command a premium because they add value.
Mike is literally taking money from Wall Street (earned honestly) and distributing it to progressive causes. Why is it so hard for Krugman to get behind this?
Why rail against "the financialization" of the economy when in fact finance has been a long-standing pillar of civilization? And why implicate Bloomberg in this supposedly insidious development? Mike had a great idea and great execution. Why is his success a crime?
Can we have a conversation about how to get this country back on track without vilifyng false boogeymen?
1
I don’t know about all this. The four out of top five wealthy people in the US are tech entrepreneurs and one is a person who is a legendary investor in things that are made and consumed by people for the significant part of his huge portfolio of companies. It is true that he owns a huge amount of the property and casualty insurance industry but that is an ancient business which I believe is not the type of financialization that Professor Krugman talking about. The rest of the top ten include the Waltons and probably the despicable Koch brothers. Not exactly arbitrage traders using Bloomberg screens.
I think the good professor’s indictment of Medicare for All, a standard on most of the civilized world including the wondrous Denmark that even his colleague David Brooks praised in his usual florid but sophomoric style here recently, is as problematic (if not outright false) as his description of the financialization of the United States economy.
Most likely this comment won’t see the light of day, but just in case, I will press the submit button.
1
Let's thank Krugman for warning us. "Corruption, fraud and the excesses of Wall Street" means we just can't have affordable, universal HC, even though dozens of other capitalist democracies have had it for decades or longer.
Just too bad, it must still be denied to Americans?
Gosh. Maybe in 2024 or 28, or 32 ? What do you think, PK---ever?
Seems the "financialization of our economy" meets 2 goals. Transfers our national wealth away from the citizen majority, up to the 1 percent elites who pay little in taxes. And who donate big to our campaigns.
AND also blocks universal HC as too radical. Our system can maintain the 'financialization' of our medical industry--- making big profits off our sickness and distress. Why not say it?
So by distracting Democrats from the life and death issue of health care as a right, our system stays the world's most expensive and profitable.
Seems even in our famous democracy, constant excuses can be found, by those who want to, to keep multi millions unprotected by insurance. Or leave millions of the insured still insecure, and often crushed by huge medical bills.
Hey, pretty nifty!
Since HC reform won't be passed, why waste precious political capital on it? Why waste column space? Why go too far 'left' as defined by our financialized politics and medical industry, and thus ruin one's reputation as a prestigious media influencer?
The ONLY thing that debate did was ensure that Donald Trump's will be re-elected. Thanks guys. You got to exercise your gigantic egos once again -- to the detriment of the country.
Time to start planning for 2024. This election is all but over.
1
Thank you Paul Krugman! I wish Warren would make the financialization of the economy an important part of her message. Here's hoping she reads your column!
2
Elizabeth Warren has always been my first choice. She is smart, principled, passionate, surrounds herself with smart people, and has a proven track record. The only criticism so far has been about the sixteenth part (or whatever part) Native American brouhaha, which is a big nothing burger hyped by the brainless MSM, who have nothing more important to do than tear down good candidates.
1
Power to the women. We men have failed miserably in steering this planet in a peaceful and faur direction. Let's simply step aside and let the women give it a try. Not any woman, of course. But there plenty of leaders that can do it everywhere and right now.
1
Dems should be DEALING with the HYPOCRISY that runs their party 24 hours and seven days a week. That is what really matters to this former Democrat who admires a President who actually has fewer faults than West Coast geology.
Here's my dream team: Bloomberg dumps enough cash into the race to win the Presidency. Warren is his VP. Then Bloomberg sticks around for a couple months, then resigns the Presidency....
The fight is not just against Trump. it's against Trump, the Russians and the Republicans in the House and Senate.
1
As usual, you make good sense, Paul. But the Bernie folks are into Bernie, not good sense—they’re not even into getting rid of Donald Trump.
1
Nice all of this chatter about the bad tax bill and the stuffed shirt billionaires, and nary a word about our fractured state of international relations. Pathetic.
How can someone as brilliant as Paul Krugman not be behind a Single Payer/improved MediCare for All national health plan, which every other developed nation in the world has in some form? The citizens of those countries pay a LOT less overall than we do for health care, and have much better results.
If you aren’t sure, go to websites for National Nurses United and Physicians for a National Health Program . Also, https://truthout.org/articles/medicare-for-all-would-save-450-billion-and-prevent-68000-deaths-every-year/.
EVERYBODY in the U.S. will have health care under improved Medicare for All, paid for by the government; no more premiums, copays, deductibles, pre-existing conditions, and insurance companies deciding if they will pay for what you need! No more bankruptcies due to medical bills. And we could have free longterm care, and hearing aids and dental, and SO much more, cradle to grave. Not to mention that we now pay exorbitant amounts for Big Pharma's medications, unlike other countries.
Yes, our taxes will go up, but the huge insurance company profits will disappear to more than balance that off. It has been shown that overall, MediCare for All will cost us significantly less than the current system.
The ads being aired now on TV and elsewhere (paid for with your premiums) are nothing but lies and misinformation by an industry that makes billions for its CEOs & stockholders, on the backs of sick people: US. Don't believe them please.
3
I made bought and sold all sorts of loans when I was in banking. After a while, they call it seasoning, a loan would could be traded dozens of times without concern for the underlying asset or company. It was like playing Monopoly. The traders did not care about the tangible asset so long as they had an underlying note.
A ten thousand dollar note could generate fifty thousand dollars in accumulated fees. The underlying debtor still only owed the amount of the original debt and not one extra pair of shoes were made.
2
It's an American paradox: chase the American dream, work hard and become rich and successful. The paradox is that once you've done this, you become an object of resentment and derision.
Mike Bloomberg personifies the American dream, having built an incredibly successful company using only his own smarts and hard work. Now he is giving back by supporting climate change and gun control initiatives, and to defeating Donald Trump. Why can we not look past jealousy at his success and appreciate Bloomberg's willingness to devote his resources to good causes? It would be great to have a president who isn't beholden to any special interest group and who would operate with intelligence and integrity, even if he isn't the smoothest debater.
2
Bloomberg used the Republican talking points on redlining. Of course, that upset someone as informed as Elizabeth Warren on the financial crisis and what caused it. I'm glad she put him in his place. We all need to look at that more carefully. I'm glad you pointed out that Bloomberg made his billions from equipment that is used on Wall Street. I think we all associate him with Bloomberg news. I worked in the financial industry, for a regulator, and I know from first hand experience that ending redlining, which was discriminatory, is not the cause of the financial meltdown in 2008. It's more complicated and more linked to deregulation, which the Republicans always push for at the request of lobbying banks. They just wanted to blame it on the Democrats when it was clearly their fault. This whole subject needs more dialogue because as you said, it has a huge impact on our economy.
2
To me Bloomberg may well be the final nail in the coffin of our democracy. If he wins the nomination, it is proof once and for all that our government is for sale to the highest bidder. It literally makes me ill to see that he has gotten this far with nothing more than money and a willing media. I do not hear any ideas coming from his campaign, only that he, with all his untold wealth, is the only one who can beat the current occupant of the White House. Our country is truly in dire straits.
3
@Greg Bloomberg's record of philanthropy speaks volumes. Yes, he's jumped in due to his wealth and experience as mayor of NYC, but here he is. He has the deep pockets (despite being short)to beat Trump and would hopefully appoint smart and good people to help him run the country. Take an antacid and read about him.
1
Elizabeth Warren reminds me of secretaries who used to work for me.
I ran large senior centers and homeless shelters for a living, sometimes employing dozens of people as cooks, drivers, home health aides and social workers. They were busy places.
They carried the title of Assistant to the Executive Director, but a better title would have been Jack (or Jill) of all trades. They were expert typists and could take dictation, bur their real skills
were handling people, me included.
They got paid about half of what I was making, which wasn’t very much.
Writing grant proposals was a big part of my job, and I was
delighted to have their clerical skills at my disposal, but it was their skill at handling the daily emergencies that arose in the place that mattered most to me.
They had close ties to the communities we were working in and used these ties to get things done.
It took me a while to understand this and realize that there were days when I was better off working at home while leaving the real business of the place up to them.
These women were hard headed realists devoted to their jobs. You didn’t hear much about their family lives while they were working.
When I watched Sen. Warren give Mr. Bloomberg that trashing, I immediately felt sorry for him.
I recognized my secretaries in her and knew he was in the hands of someone still smarting from many years of frustration, disappointment and lack of recognition in her own career and is now looking to make up for it.
2
What's interesting about Warren's recent fall from the top tier is that it appears to have been the result of her attempt to pivot away from Medicare for All. That's when her polls started tanking. It really is difficult to be left enough to win the nomination but center enough to win the election. The media missed this entirely, of course, and actually blamed her former full-throated support for Medicare for All for the drop. I was glad to see her perform so well in the debate, though I was not happy that Mike couldn't "get it done". If he was a strong candidate, that would probably simplify the path to a post Orange Clown world.
1
Medicare-for-all may never be enacted, but it will determine who prevails in November. Medicare-if-you-want-it preserves the Democratic health care advantage, allowing a Democrat to win and save the ACA. Medicare-for-all gives that advantage away with the claim “Vote for Trump and you can keep your health care, vote for Bernie and he’ll take it away”, allowing Trump to win and destroy the ACA.
2
I am reminded of author Michael Lewis' comments after talking to a group of business students at The Ohio State University. He was there to talk about his weathervane book "Liar's Poker" which he considered a cautionary tale about the underbelly of financial engineering and lurking idiocy of mortgage securitization. Instead, the students took his book as a how-to guide to future financial riches.
In the immortal words of the mythical Gordon Gekko, "greed is good." And so it became.
1
Prof Krugman started out trying to make eye opening remarks about his chosen candidate, Elizabeth Warren. His points on her strength as a politician who should be elected to the presidency have validity. However in the same breadth dismisses Senator Sanders who has garnered a plurality, and growing, as some radical nut case.
This is no longer punditry but the worst uncalled for irrational attack on Senator Sanders. The Vermont Senator is not "radical", a term used to invoke fear. Sanders's proposals have the strongest mainstream appeal. All his proposals exist as laws in other modern societies.
His MFA bill is a four year phase in with just transition for workers in the health insurance industry. Medicare was vilified by the AMA and insurers as a communist plot, but enrolled 90% of those eligible in less than a year.
Those resisting what must be done to enable everyone to function at their best are showing a deficit in American "know how". American "can do" spirit, our strongest American progressive value, is in the balance.
Senator Sanders and the Preamble to the Constitution are in alignment. Fear of change and sticking to a zero sum game is too common a malady in this country. Higher voter turnout to end corrupt government is the cure.
Our strength lies in everyone's well being. Survival as a nation depends on it.
1
Another piece that wants to look past public support for Bernie. Warren has arrived at a moment that makes her the favorite non-Bernie with a chance for the nomination.
If she were nominated, the possibility of meaningful reform would loom.
The downside risk is that, squeezed out, Bernie supporters will have to struggle with choosing to eat their disappointment and support the nominee, boycott the election, or vote to re elect.
In making their choice, party operatives will have to weigh their views under the influence of a notion that the public will see Bernie as Stalin come lately.
1
Financialization. What a great term. It helps to understand how the dragon is ever increasingly eating its own tail. Here is another term. Economy of sustainability. The economy of sustainability knows not of any financialization. Sustainability is the enemy of aggrandization.
3
In general, I like Krugman's articles, but this one tops them all. He really hits the nail in full and we should all read it and reflect upon it.
Bloomberg's success in his business brings to memory the truth that the best way to make money during the gold rush was to sell shovels. He is managing to sell golden shovels to the Wall Street aces, moguls, and wannabes.
7
Warren indeed did well.
Warren is one of the very few potential leaders who might take on financial institution lobbying and put in place reasonable regulations again.
It is truly unfortunate that President Obama supported such small regulation changes, and, sent exactly zero Wall Street figures to jail. Instead, he chose to build those relationships so that, immediately following his tenure, he could give his first non-Presidential speech to, as I recall, JP Morgan, for $400,000. An all time high.
Instead of staggering the now fantastically expensive "Obama care" into existence, Obama could have focused on cleaning up the mess left from Bill Clinton and his signing of the repeal of the Glass Steagall act after being paid off by Wall Street. And, the mess of legalizing derivatives by Bush in 2001.
Now? Warren is the best Demcrat candidate, by far. But, she won't get the nomination and Bernie is focused on giving free ice cream to everyone.
So, get used to growing debt, and, boom and bust.....mostly bust for most of us.
4
Good for Bloomberg and his billions, but they couldn't buy him a debate victory or a warm and fuzzy personality for TV when he needed it most. Like Trump, he's used to buying things and controlling people, but when the curtain is pulled back on these wizards, their narcissism, non-disclosure agreements and unbridled sense of privilege is exposed for all to see.
3
It's amazing the degree to which the New York Times writers insist that Medicare for All isn't going to happen. I realize it's going to take some time and persuasion. But the constant harping on how it *can't* happen isn't helping either.
It's easy for those with employer-sponsored healthcare and/or high salaries to say it's not going to happen. The reality is that so many people are suffering from the high cost of health care -- the premiums, the deductibles, the co-pays, the uncovered expenses (vision, dental, obscure out-of-network charges).
Maybe there could be more writing about how to actually help the middle class families who fall outside of the ACA subsidies, how to bring down deductibles for those who buy on the exchange (typically $6500 to $13K), how to get solid vision and dental coverage for those without employer-sponsored health care, how to avoid all these crazy loopholes that mean certain hospitals or regions aren't even covered by your health plan -- or that not your bills aren't covered even if you go to an in-network provider.
4
Warren's campaign is the intellectual, policy-wonk version of Sanders, which is why he is leading. Americans do not trust facts, clearly researched plans, or intellectuals in general; instead they trust bluster. I love Sanders but he campaigns with bluster compared to Warrens facts and specific ideas.
Let's spilt the difference with a Warren-Buttigieg ticket. 8 years as VP would give Mayor Pete all the experience he would need. Let Bloomy spend Billions against #45, but please not POTUS .
5
Financialization is the basis of capitalism and dates back to the first mutual companies formed to share risk in trade several hundred years ago. It is the basis for your mortgage, car loan, student loan, credit card, and your bank account not to mention the stock and bond market. If Krugman really bemoans this then, well, there really is very little to say except he is living in the wrong era...
2
Financial reforms? OK. But this is a HUGE distraction to the central challenge of restoring sanity, comity, and competence to the presidency. While Democrats dual over these matters a candidate (Sanders) is surging who Donald Trump will likely obliterate in the general election.
3
This has always been my main reason for supporting Warren. We are living in an era in which major domestic legislation introduced by the executive branch is not something we can count on happening, no matter who is in office.
As a presidential candidate and national figure over the last five years, Bernie Sanders has had a truly historic impact on the healthcare Overton window, and for that work he deserves enormous credit. As a president, his power as a conversation-mover might be even higher, but it would also be immediately brought to its ceiling. Meanwhile, his policy ambitions, to this day without any explanations given of how they would be accomplished politically or fiscally, have virtually no chance of becoming law.
On the other hand, the executive branch continues to have significant directive power when it comes to regulation, and here there is no question who the strongest candidate is. Even before she became a senator, Warren was a leading national voice in the push for regulatory reform for the financial industry.
5
Another reason for the Bernie/Warren double standard may be the way mainstream Democrats view Warren vs Sanders. Warren was the noticeable choice of many enlightened people in sectors like the media, who are skeptical of a Sanders presidency. The idea often seems to be something like: Warren is a wonk whose ideas should be taken seriously, whereas Bernie is an idealist hack. When Warren proposes something as unlikely as single payer (for political and economic reasons), the idea that she is a grounded wonk is challenged and she has serious explaining to do. When Bernie proposes Medicare for all, he is predictably consistent (and consistently not viable for many). While the average American voter *may* not care about how a candidate will finance their plan, the expectation of a wonk is that they know how they'll finance their ideas and this is a strength. Warren's Medicare for all debacle was that she failed to propose a reasonable way to cover the immense costs, challenging her image and viability.
1
Krugman says that dealing with the world of finance is a major function of the president. Jessica Mathews argues that foreign policy is really the only area where a president has a direct impact. A reader below argues that the president can single-handedly fix Wall Street.
But this is not how history (and our democracy) works. To be sure, individuals matter, leaders matter. But more importantly, institutions matter, elections matter, and citizens matter.
Our crisis today is not only one of presidential leadership, but is also one of crumbling institutions from years of abuse and manipulation by lobbyists and corrupt politicians, and is also one of citizens willingly duped by the like of Fox News.
Krugman performs a service by trying to educate citizens. And we citizens can help by pressuring our representatives and by voting. But as long as our government is filled with Republicans who simply cave in to Trump while Trump crashes the remnants of our institutions, we will be heading towards a collapsed democracy.
We can stop this now. And it does not matter which Democrats get into office. They all will support our constitutional order and will work with us to revive our democratic institutions and our sense of decency, which ultimately underlies our way of life.
2
I just read that Bloomberg has named as one of his advisers Stephanie Rawlings Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore who shut down most of the rec centers that served children in Baltimore among many other wrong-headed policies that adversely affected regular Baltimore people. If that's any indication of the type of person who would be part of his administration, it's yet another red flag to this lifelong Democrat that Bloomberg is not the right candidate.
Warren is smart, articulate, experienced, and tough. I hope she will be our next president.
6
The last debate made it clear, once again, that other than Elizabeth Warren, everyone else, including Bernie, speak in "PowerPoints and Post-It Notes" rather than offering any details to their plans. It's a distinction of following someone with an actual 'map' or following someone using a 'divining rod'.
7
Warren is a brilliant tactician with a big heart who truly cares about t his country and knows how to right it. If anyone can restore democracy in this country, it's Warren. She is a leader. I am deeply saddened, that once again, a woman with Warren's ability and experience, is relegated to a back seat in this very important presidential race. Everyone piled on when she evaded the Medicare for All issue. If she had a debate where she didn't get her usual "speaking time" she was pronounced finished. What would have happened to Warren had she been the one who had a heart attack?
13
Our economy is a giant pie which, even in good times, grows at about only 2% a year. So we all spend our time fighting for more of the pie. Currently, the top 1% own 40% of the pie, the most in recent memory. How did this happen?
First is access to information. Today, the guy with the most computing and network power wins, because he has access to more data and information about the world and consumers. Hence, the rise of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, high volume stock traders, currency and commodity traders and others like them who profit from quickly gathering and using information.
Second is access to power. The guy who can achieve what he wants through using his money to deftly manipulate politicians and the political system will get more of the pie. This is why in recent memory we have seen banking deregulation, slashing of taxes paid by the wealthy, weakening of government regulation that could limit the wealthy's exploitation of natural resources, and ignoring of looming crises like climate change.
These two factors--access to information and power--will continue to mean more of the pie goes to fewer mouths, unless the rules are changed. They need to be, or else both our democracy and capitalism itself are at risk.
3
The financial services industry is an institutionalized form of usury.
Why is a Bloomberg or a Bezos allowed to amass billions while this country has had for decades woefully underfunded schools, a financial disaster of a health care system, ruinous college costs, homelessness, unlivable cities with crumbling infrastructure, an opioid crisis spawned by predatory drug companies, not to mention a dying planet? Why is corporate welfare just fine while humans are allowed to suffer? There is a class war in this country. It was clear from the debate that it is not Bloomberg who talks, it’s Bloomberg’s money. Give me Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Enough of keeping the world safe for the wealthy.
7
Krugman criticizes Bloomberg because of the means he used to become a billionaire.
Yes, one might argue that financialization is a process that has built a few billionaires at the expense of the poor.
But Bloomberg did play by the rules which we all constructed through our laws.
Financialization helped us non-billionaires avoid confronting the fact that resources on planet earth are finite.
They allowed macroeconomists to continue to grow GDP, which was portrayed as improving America's economy, when it was the wrong measure all along.
We could measure economic health in terms of production of goods and services which are used now, versus promises of production in the distant future.
We can engineer such promises by adjusting interest rates, one of the advantages of a fiat currency.
A billionaire is a thousand times as wealthy as a millionaire, but he doesn't eat a thousand breakfasts each day, he usually doesn't have a garage with a thousand cars.
Expanding the wealth of the 1% grows GDP but doesn't add to inflation because the goods and services aren't produced now, merely promised for the future.
There is the danger that if the Sanders or Warren wealth tax actually materialized we would find that as the wealthy cashed in their stocks, the market would fall. There would be a race to see if we could obliterate billionaire wealth before it vanished.
A side effect would be that pension funds would go bankrupt and much of the national debt would become due.
3
The one subject Prof. Krugman does not address is the impact information economy technology has on income levels and resulting wealth distribution. Mayor Bloomberg became a billionaire because he figured out how to deliver information faster to Wall Street. His company continues to excel in delivering information to business consumers. Jeff Bezos started Amazon which revolutionized how products are delivered through information technology. Amazon is now expanding the hosting of information, a very profitable part of the business. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer did the same with Microsoft. Michael Dell the same with Dell Computers. Steve Jobs and Apple. The list is a long one and continues to grow. Prof. Krugman, respectfully, you are focused on the result and not the cause. The challenge we face is how to expand opportunities for Americans to be part of the information economy which represents the evolution of our economy from an agrarian society to industrial and now post-industrial. I look forward to reading future columns. Thank you.
3
Thank you Dr. K for defining the differences between Bloomberg and Warren.
There is another side to look at before deciding to back Warren, one that no one is looking at: it will take the next Democratic administration nearly its entire term to refresh and redevelopment the administrative structure of government and restore trust in its ability to operate honestly in a post-trump world. Warren has the skills and the background to accomplish that daunting task. She proved that with the creation of the CFPC.
While Bloomberg may have managerial skills, working in the government is NOT the same as working in a profit development environment. Warren has those skills and would use them effectively. We need that skill.
Warren in 2020
15
It seems like every column now the argument is being made that we cannot afford the cost of healthcare for everyone even though we already pay more per capita than any other country by at least a factor of two for a system that provides the best care for only the very elite with regularity and fails a great many of the rest. Moreover a great many of us are frightened of surprise billing, loss of job meaning loss of coverage and bankruptcy all too common with a serious diagnosis like cancer. Single payer would save a lot if only in cutting the complexities that have nothing to do with healthcare. Supplemental insurance could fill any gaps and overall we can certainly pay for it because we already are. It is simply a matter of structuring it so that businesses continue to pay their share of the cost. For individuals whether it is taxes or premiums the effect on their take home pay is a wash.
1
Great description of Bloomberg’s product and the industry it serves. Like the proverbial seller of pic axes in a gold rush. You admire him for being in the right place and time with the right product, but in the end it’s basically: added-value? Zero.
4
M.Krugman, if there was a law that would tax the 2nd transaction on same stock from the same source with 0.01% the 3rd and all successive ones with 0.1%, there would be a slowdown in high frequency trade and stock speculations while keeping the system to be supportive of the real economy. The financial tools such as Bloomberg Terminal would lose the harmful effect.
4
@Gaz same day transaction, to be precise
@Gaz: you may want to know that Bloomberg has put forth a comprehensive financial reform package, which includes a transaction tax of 0.02% to start, reducing to 0.1% on ALL financial transactions, including computerized trades. If enacted, it would generate billions.
In this column, Dr. Krugman repeats his previous assertion that Warren's support for Medicare-for-All doesn't matter because it'll never be passed by Congress. He thus minimizes the adverse impact of support for Medicare-for-All on the 2020 election. If Warren or Sanders is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will run a campaign saying that Democrats will destroy employer-based health insurance. The GOP won't even have to resort to outright lies to pry voters away from supporting Warren or Sanders and down-ticket Democrats. Trump will win easily and even the House might be retaken by the Republicans. Dems need to shift the focus to more pragmatic solutions to high health care insurance premiums and to fixing a system that can leave families with overwhelming medical bills even though they have health care insurance. M4A isn't the only solution to this problem. A public option could serve this purpose without being as politically toxic as M4A. As much as I usually like Dr. Krugman, his political naivete on M4A is startling.
1
Excellent points, but Wall Street owns both the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, Chuck Schumer is the biggest proponent of the carried interest preferential tax provision. Moreover, "financial reform" isn't an issue that the general public understands or is passionate about. As a result, meaningful financial market reforms aren't on the horizon unless we see another 2008 type meltdown.
3
Well, how easily we forget. Sanders proposals were the target of a study by the Koch funded faculty at GMU - the Mercatus center - which accidentally showed that they would save money over the current system. Cause here's the thing- there are two parts to that system, the public part and the private part. The cost of medical care is a combination of both parts. If the public part expands and the private part remains constant, we pay more - if the private part contracts equal to the expansion of the public part, we pay the same, and if the latter contracts more, we pay less. Pretty simple. Now break that "we" up into real households, and how much they pay for medical care, and we get the whole impetus for medicare for all. Cause medicare is, now, universal for the oldest age group. And we've had sixty years of success with that. Here's the forgotten Mercatus study: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/23/17769130/medicare-for-all-costs-bernie-sanders-mercatus-study
7
Paul Krugman, I appreciate your presentation of Elizabeth Warren as "a force to be reckoned with" because of her experience as a serious researcher/scholar who understands certain aspects of the financial industry as perhaps no other candidate does, not even Bloomberg.
I note here something I have observed in the comment columns next to articles appearing just before and just after the debate.
There have been as many as 3000 comments next to an article and of these an extraordinary number have been submitted by anonymous individuals who use extreme language to describe Warren's performance - she is said to have been shrieking, screaming, shouting, and much worse. This characterization is followed by simple assertions that only Bloomberg can save us.
I think the comment review board should have been discussing where the line is to be drawn concerning acceptability. I write here knowing that at best you might mention to an appropriate editor that a question has been raised.
The Times does not offer us comment writers any opportunity to discuss comment review with appropriate Times staff or to carry out discussion in a forum where we could cite examples. I find many comments unacceptable although I do not see such today at your column.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
13
@Larry Lundgren I agree - I read some of the descriptions of Warren and think the commenters must have been watching a completely different debate. Warren spoke with feeling and was forceful and resolute throughout.
I must disagree with you that the business Mr. Bloomberg built adds nothing to society.
It provides information and analytics on every asset class trading around the world, with news and live prices. It has granular detail regarding every securitization, prospectus information, SEC filings, etc.
It is a proprietary communication system in capital markets.
Every business of scale raises debt through underwriting, syndications, and every other pool of capital in international capital markets.
Interest rates, credit spreads, foreign exchange rates, and other components of funding must be transparent to be efficient.
Without the transparency provided particularly by Bloomberg terminals, every institution comprising capital markets would need to invent such a system to have this transparency.
Efficient allocation of capital is essential to efficient markets. So to say Bloomberg terminals add no value to society is incorrect.
Warren's best issue is speaking about corruption, a hallmark of the Trump era. Trump is attempting to mirror Russia's kleptocracy.
Interesting that Putin has recently spoken about reducing corruption (when he leaves), and China has cracked down on corruption as well.
Innovation doesn't grow in corrupt societies - as the value in innovation is expropriated.
The CFPB was an extraordinary regulator. It is toothless under Trump.
That said, fight fraud, but not banks and finance indiscriminately.
Profiling is not a right in race or industry.
7
This I think is the first time I can remember agreeing with Krugman.
And thank you for explaining how Bloomberg made his billions. I didn’t know.
Now, can you please explain why the stock market keeps going up?
7
@Steven Roth, the stock market? It's largely the easy money and liquidity provided by the Fed, plus FOMO - fear of missing out. It won't be pretty when it ends.
11
Most would agree the most pressing issue is removing Trump. I can guarantee you that outside of his 'base' who will support him no matter what, there are millions who are 'on the fence' because they know in their hearts he is corrupt. THESE are the people the democratic candidate has to appeal to if they are to get the numbers.
But by the same token the economy is doing well (how well depends on who you talk to) so history will tell us people are less inclined to want a change. But they can be persuaded if the new person isn't too risky. So what we need is a candidate who garner enough votes from the independents and fence-sitters.
If one is objective about it, that would be the person who is leasy likely to up-end the apple cart, i.e., a fiscal conservative, while still restoring the moral standing that the US has lost under Trump. That would not be Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren but rather your Bloomberg, Buttigieg or Klobuchar.
6
I thoroughly agree with the premise that bank-money and the fancy tricks now tacked on to mask mutual obligations that the financial sector has reneged on, is a major world disaster.
Nothing socially decent and useful to the general public interest can occur without brave governments firmly putting their financial sectors into a much smaller, delimited place. England has really nothing but the City of London but if a President Warren could be stern with Wall Street, it would make a huge difference around the world.
3
Terrific insight. This is why I seek out your essays twice a week
I find the most disturbing, the metamorphosis of our economy from one that actually makes things of added value to grow profits, to an economy migrating out of the country in a mass exodus of capital and equipment.
The rich guys of America, protected by corrupt authorities everywhere, are pillaging the nation and setting themselves up in other countries because they know, like every other nation in history, the commoners always rebel against the Bourgeois class.
Bloomberg protected the guilty robbers of Wall street during the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations in which what he referred to as "My Private Army", the NYPD, herded and abused the demonstrators when he was Mayor of NYC.
We need the learned Elizabeth Warren to save us. The consumer Financial Bureau was only the first step to stop the bleeding of middle class wealth.
Bloomberg is providing the tools for thieves moving the American economy out of the country. Everyone is ready to escape in their private jets.
I understand you subscribe to a world economy ethos, but "Globalization" is a label created to make the biggest heist sound nice.
8
Dr. Krugman - why would I want to trade a want to be billionaire president who disparages and is cruel to women and minorities, who did stop and frisk, who made his billions on Wall Street deals (Wall Street is full of such gamblers who never go to jail and who crashed the economy in the Great Recession), for the devil we know?
Senator Sanders has been true to his word for his whole career. He may not achieve some form of Medicare for All (which - as he pointed out - every other Westernized nation has somehow managed to have), but at least he has set the bargaining point as the full loaf instead of a half, or crumbs.
Senator Warren was correct about post - it notes.
Sanders is the best and we are lucky to have him. Both women have grit. The other men...not impressed. And I am 78 years old.
7
Surprising to read these words come from Paul Krugman. In fact the services sector often surpasses manufacturing, as agriculture shrinks in comparison to both, as an economy progresses, allowing a society to achieve ever rising standards of living.
Financial deregulation per se was not evil. It allowed businesses to raise capital efficiently, not just through bank loans; helped make public companies be managed better as there is better transparency through price discovery in the public markets; made our capital markets stronger and deeper, less manipulable; provided employment to several hundred thousands of people in New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and consequently disproportionately large tax revenues to their governments. Also spawned services that supported finance sector workers, to name just some benefits. It brought about innovations that helped people who plan ahead to have decent retirement accounts by now.
(Today technology companies have taken over finance as the industry for highly motivated young people to want to work in. Some obvious regulation is needed there to protect consumers and democracies.)
Yes abuses led to the mortgage crisis and limited regulation is warranted although sometimes even best intentioned people won’t recognize them until after the fact. Too much regulation will stifle innovation, add costs, and consumers end up paying more. Moderation is key and Warren is a regulation fiend who can take it to extremes.
2
The unequal distribution of wealth in this country, brought about by financial deregulation, is pretty extreme. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren is any kind of fiend, but I do think the way the odds are stacked against ordinary people these days is fiendish.
You may call her reforms extreme. I call it justice and long overdue. For goodness sake, have you any idea how far we have fallen from the economic security of the average American in the 50s, when there were nonetheless severe problems for many?
America is hurting, badly. People lose their homes after huge medical bills. Starting a small business and keeping it alive long enough to pay off the credit card you had to use to launch it is nearly impossible. The gig economy has made a third of our workforce labor for less than minimum wage.
We need a hero. Liz is the one.
18
I have to ask the author what % of his income does he spend on health insurance? Mine is 30%. Does he pay so much for insurance that he finds he cannot pay in any meaningful way for his children's college? Because I have. Does he spend 100 hours a year arguing with his "great" Health Insurance Provider? Because I do. From where I am standing paying more for health insurance than I do in State and Federal taxes (and only less than over all taxes by the margin of my property tax) that a modest tax increase to see a reduction in health care costs is a more than fair trade. The current system is inhumane, unfair and wasteful. If you do not like Medicare for all I suggest you come up with a realistic alternative, because the status quo is not working for most Americans.
16
"Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins — to an issue where it matters a lot which Democrat prevails.:
The absolute confidence where this sentiment prevails ignores the past and near future, and is in part wishful thinking of those indifferent to the benefits of M4A for so many people. The past. Remember Reagan and his landslide of 1980, and the accompanying elections of 7 or 8 new Senators. This gave him not only the ability to pass his tax cuts in the Senate but to cow Democrats in the House. In the future, because with resistance by Republicans and increasing health care costs, it can possibly gain greater and greater popularity which even fervent Republicans could not resist totally without political defeat,
As for Warren, Krugman and other liberals now see Warren as they would like to see her, eviscerated from anything Sanders. Remember she rose suddenly , and faded mainly because media distress that she was too attached to Sanders thinking. Now they imagine her as their savior. What form she will take if she does not enter oblivion is still to be determined
1
Finacialization is a corollary of moving the bulk of industrial production to Asia and the dollarization of world currency. If it was not Bloomberg who personified this trend, someone else would have. The mobility of capital only shows it looks for where the higher rates of return are (Asia). The financial guys take their share based on future profits, or claims on, of the industrialized or productive capital. That is shrinking as the industrial recession in Asia, Europe, and now possibly in the US shows
I don't understand how anyone can still support Bloomberg for the Democratic nomination after the debate. I will say that his ads are the best I've ever seen. However, he's not really a Democrat, and Trump would eat him up and progressives would flee. He could do everything he said he wanted to do that is positive without being a losing nominee. Hopefully, those who left Biden for him will go back.
As for Warren, she tied herself to Bernie's so-called Medicare for All plan, and then tried to explain how she would implement and pay for it. That was her downfall. She tried to be Bernie light. Bernie's followers don't care about details on implementation and payment about all his policies. They don't hear that it is impossible for them to become law. They hear that everyone is going to get totally free healthcare far beyond what other public systems in the world provide. They also want free public college, free childcare, free preschool, guaranteed federal jobs for everyone at $15 or more per hour + full benefits, expanded Social Security benefits, paid family leave, and more. The put their faith in Bernie, who has not been able to pass a single major piece of similar legislation in his many years in Congress. They think it's silly to think that many people in the US are going to be put off by the Republican/Russian propaganda about Bernie being a Democratic Socialist. It's all a matter of faith for them.
4
So the Bloomberg Terminal grants access to vast financial data to those who cough up $24000 a year. Andrew Yang often reiterated that 'data is the oil of the future'. Now we know Bloomberg's flourishing financial health is assured. Looking a gift horse in the mouth is inadvisable. His offer to sponsor progressive Democrat candidates for State Houses, Congress and the Senate, is a valuable one. Without a Democrat sweep of these, how can even the most progressive President achieve any paradigm shift? The President is often touted as 'the most powerful man in the world'. But a recalcitrant Senate/Congress can bring even a Superman to his knees, as happened in Obama's final year in office. The choice is stark. The purists may righteously flush Bloomberg's billions out of the system. Then what are their chances, when faced with Trump's millions flooding the airwaves, if their resources are the much leaner pickings from Mother Hubbard's cupboard?
4
All fights are unwinnable unless you at least fight them.
Giving up on a healthcare plan that would cover everybody by saying it's not possible as Mr. Krugman has been saying for years (and I've yet to read how he explains why it is possible in every other industrialized country but not hear) would ensure that it never comes to pass.
Things often take time. Harry Truman proposed Medicare when he was president. It didn't come about for years.
It took from the end of reconstruction to the 1960s for blacks in this country to be given their Constitutional rights and there were people fighting all those years for them. Oh, and there were people fighting against slavery from the founding of the country.
In 1968 Robert Kennedy used to end his campaign speech with "Some see things as they are and say why; I see things that never were and say why not."
15
@Steve
Why we don’t have the healthcare of Europe?: The terrific financial and political clout of the “for profit” healthcare providers and pharmaceuticals in the United States is virtually unbeatable. They will be absolutely ferocious when their cash cows are threatened! I doubt any American politician could survive their combined political onslaught against them.
@Garry
I know that but have you heard Mr. Krugman or any of the candidates apart from Sanders and perhaps Warren say that the only reason we can't have this is because too many people are making money out of the current system at the expense of the health and finances of the American people.
1
For three years at the end of the '90s I was a financial editor at an investment bank--until it was bought by another investment bank--and it was the only job I ever had where I was called into the supervisor's office, a little uneasy because I'd had the job only two weeks, and was told that he had been informed that my starting salary wasn't high enough. Coming from the publishing world, I had been very happy with it, but getting an unexpected raise was a shock. I also got a nice bonus every year, and a big bonus (and some freelance work at Deutsche Bank, of all places) for staying until the final takeover. I'm sure my social security payments would be lower if it hadn't been for that job, which was also a lot more interesting than I'd expected (that was when I started reading Krugman's column). So I have no complaints about my financial world experience. But Krugman is right: Nothing is created except more wealth for the wealthy, often at the expense of the non-wealthy. And Elizabeth Warren is the president we need.
16
Because of her success in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I always thought she was the one with the knowledge and smarts to be a good president and I contributed to her campaign and then came her support for M4A and other wild far out ideas that I think the American electorate will not like. The first order of business if you want to do things in politics is to get elected and to choose to hype plans that will never be popular in the next election, I thought made her not very electable. So I'm disappointed but who else is there? Bloomberg is another, smarter Trump Repub pretending to be a Dem, Biden just is not a good campaigner and is not going anywhere. Bernie is another Corbyne headed for a huge defeat. I sure wish Warren hadn't ruined her campaign with way out ideas but that's past.
On the Michael Milken front, the WSJ has a completely different take, unsurprisingly. I myself have no take, not having sufficient knowledge of the facts and being too lazy, as of now, to acquaint myself with them thoroughly. Here's their editorial on the topic: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-michael-milken-pardon-11582072119
The claim that financialization is bad and has had deplorable reverberations rests on the presumption that it has happened, which Tyler Cowen takes issue with in his book. Cowen shows, or tries to, that the claim that in the 1960s finance was ~4% of GDP whereas today it's double that, is quite misleading. It's better, more accurate, to examine the share of assets that finance controls. And when you do that the figure is basically static, hovering at ~2% since the '60s.
After Michael Bloomberg (who has an engineering degree from Johns Hopkins and an MBA from Harvard) went from clerk to head of equity trading at Salomon Brothers in the late 1970s, he quickly ended up relegated to the computer division after disputes with the head of the firm, John Gutfreund. This was serendipitous. He computerized the information and analytics systems, left Salomon Brothers in 1981, took this knowledge with him, and founded Innovate Market Systems. His first sale? Twenty terminals to Merrill Lynch.
If Bloomberg hadn't done that, someone else would've. It saved time, money, increased efficiency -- and the Bloomberg Terminal's innovativeness ITSELF propelled innovation.
3
Good analysis. To go further, it is our intellectual and political leadership elite that bought into the idea of deregulation, efficient markets and the "invisible hand" generating the most good. Both Democrats and Republicans believe in the mythology of free markets and capitalism which, without any ethical or religious constraints, takes us just one step away from the jungle. Economics is, after all, just a tool, a tool that should be used by man and not the other way around.
7
What really matters is that Trump and Senate Republicans have essentially shredded the Constitution and subverted the country to install an authoritarian regime with no accountability.
Like it or not, that’s where we are.
10
Dr. Krugman,
This is one of your best columns, yet, on exactly what is wrong in our system and how it started. The financialization of our economy over the decades has drawn the blood from the goose and left nothing but bones.
How ironic that Mr. Milkin, a leader in this bloodletting, has just been pardoned.
I hope that the Country can recognize that we have one person who is uniquely equipped to deal with this mess and will elect Senator Warren to clean up Wall Street.
Thank you for this article.
13
Elizabeth Warren spoke the truth about Bloomberg as she sees it-- and certainly not to "appease" Sanders' supporters.
That workplace was what we now call toxic for women-- with Bloomberg at the top, creating the corporate culture.( Very Bro, but patrician)
She will be a fine Secretary of the Treasury, which is where her brilliance is. Or a fine VP.
Watch for her in four years then. That will most surely be her time.
6
Krugman's opinion pieces always have good insights, but this one nails it. This is the big issue in 2020, bigger than health care. This is what is holding the U.S. hostage: the notion that we can't have viable capitalism without "financialization" and that all useful modifications and regulations are anathema. No progress in the USA is possible while we are collectively stuck on this absurd notion. And, my God, can we smell the panic on the Wall Street types whenever Bernie or Liz pulls back the curtain to give us a peek at the frantic little men working those levers to keep us in awe of them!
25
A Sanders-led awakening to reality is peaceful and constructive, increasing participation in democracy, and bringing out the best of humanity. Things could be worse. In the past, guillotines have been used to redress less catastrophic imbalances of power.
7
1.) Beat DJT for presidency
2.) Beat Republicans in Congress
If we do not elect someone who can take on Republican and push through meaningful reforms and progressive legislation, then what is the point?
Warren is undoubtedly the best candidate with more experience, tools, and knowhow, especially in finance where the need is urgent.
We are past inequality. We are in the midst of a major hijacking of Americans' wealth.
The wealthy have monetized everything in this country --- from companies and home mortgages to even our personal automobiles and extra rooms. They collect the value and transfer that wealth into their own bank accounts. We are left saddled with the costs -- from higher debt to depreciated cars to higher insurance.
Now, even our personal information is being monetized: their benefit and our risk of data stolen or used against us.
Industrial jobs are gone. Service jobs are being replaced with technology and whole sections of the service industry are shrinking. Uber destroyed the taxi industry. Online retail has been decimating retail and Amazon is decimating online retail. Air B&B gave us higher housing costs and reduced supply. Corporate consolidations gave us job destroyers, not creators.
And what have Americans received in return? Cheaper vacuum cleaners? Strangers in our house? We can pay the bills our wages don't cover anymore.
This is why we need Warren.
9
Such a shame that Warren couldn’t be bothered to mention her loyalty to progressive policies she now professes to support, (when used for her own personal gain), last election and do her part to spare the world from the-Dementor-who-must-not-be-elected-again. It’s almost impossible to calculate the amount of disaster and pain a Sanders presidency instead could have prevented in every corner of the world. Character matters. Trustworthiness matters.
1
The description of the Bloomberg Terminal as a tool used primarily by financial wheeler-dealers and destroyers of companies is simplistic and wrong. The Bloomberg Terminal provides information to enable all types of financial professionals do their jobs. Most Bloomberg users do not wake up every morning with the intent to destroy companies. Mr. Bloomberg built a company which employees thousands in high-paying jobs. Why do we begrudge his success? Still, our economy’s hyper-financialization is not a good thing. It is a result of zealous de-regulation and our collective failure to care about how our retirement savings are being managed. Exactly how did our private and public equity managers get those returns? At what cost?
6
The description of the Bloomberg software in this piece is incomplete and a gross simplification. The idea that in this day and age-where cell phones, internet access and around the clock media are pervasive-software that gives one a few minutes advantage can command $24,000 annual premium is ridiculous. Bond traders, as one example, rely on Bloomberg to analyze bonds and research markets, which are not publicly traded and thus more opaque. Bloomberg himself was a bond trader, and he realized how valuable a tool like this could be, which was the true innovation that made him a fortune.
4
I watched the debate. What I remember is yet another debate where the first 30-45 minutes was all about healthcare, with nothing new proposed or explained, and then it devolved into an embarrassing display of snarky comments and attacks, and the ridiculous raising of hands to get called on, and the moderators intentionally asking questions intended to be provocative and bring out the worst in all of the candidates.
If there was anything significant to remember about Wall Street and financial reform, other than Warren's reminder about how she fought for the everyday person and created and got legislation passed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, then I totally missed it.
9
The hand raising looked juvenile.
1
Yep, Warren missed a chance to demarcate Bloomberg from the current Democratic mainstream in yet another way. When Bloomberg bragged that he was the only one that had started a business, instead of a silence with unclear meaning, she would have been the logical one to respond with Krugman's point.
Oh yeah, you started a business alright. Your Bloomberg Terminal is a better tool for the people that mine our economy for easy money from financial transactions and don't care about building up manufacturing, job security, housing, health, or education. So you made billions helping the rich concentrate even more wealth into their hands. The one percent thanks you, Mike. The rest of us, not so much.
9
Will the best at debate be the best in the White House?
Bloomberg has actually administered a large city. What have Warren, Sanders, Biden, or Klobuchar administered? A staff of a dozen or so? Yes, Bloomberg has made mistakes in the past, but the others haven't made any mistakes, because they haven't had the chance to!
Again, being a good speaker does not imply one will be a good leader...
13
@Charles Mason Warren built an agency from scratch. It employed a growing number as it got built. She was a terrific leader and it was a powerfully effective agency with a laser focus on how to really help consumers directly (and to be able to clearly show how and that happened). Accountability was built in.
4
@Charles Mason
It worked for Obama, a combination of intellect and a gift for plain speaking; his wit was an added bonus. It worked for Clinton, a gifted speaker aka 'the great explainer'. I am a lifelong Democrat and would welcome a President who could educate and guide good legislation. Hopefully, both Warren and Sanders can help down ballot candidates who will change our current corrupt Congress. The current GOP Congress is controlled by Mitch McConnell who will be described by future historians as the most corrupt and destructive Congressional leader in history.
5
@Charles Mason A good leader must be a good speaker, if he/she is to govern by persuasion and not tyranny.
I think Trump is the caricature Republican that Bernie and Elizabeth will face in the next election. Bloomberg is likely to be another Ross Perot. He will hand the election to the Republicans.
The big issue is (remains) health care is a right not a privilege. The longer the Trumpists are in charge, the more likely Medicare for All will become the solution we Americans vote for. When the pendulum swings to the extreme right, it then swings back to the extreme left.
Republicans like to say that Democrats are always giving things away for free to get votes. So giving LIFE away for free is a Republican sin, because those who live because of it will vote Democrat.
4
Paul Krugman not only tries to re-write history, but he tries to re-write his own views. Today he tells us that there is no evidence that Wall Street’s mega-expansion made the rest of the economy more efficient.
But whatever it was, deregulation liberated the the US economy that had been trapped in Jimmy Carter's malaise. Remember that? (In fairness Carter deserves some of the praise for deregulation). Doesn't Krugman recall the wailing and rending of garments by America's doomsayers and declinists prophesying the end of the US economy? How long was it before Japan, Inc. was going to overtake the U.S.?
"But that all changed in the 1980s ..." says Krugman. You bet it did. In the 1980s the U.S. was the comeback kid. It got its mojo back again. Soon the US tech industry had become a colossus that bestrode the world.
In 2000, Krugman noted that unemployment in much of Europe was extremely high by U.S. standards, and especially so among the young...." But he reassured readers that "it is finally starting to come down." Twenty years later it is 8.1 percent -- and that is down from 3 years ago.
But to hear Krugman in 2020, everything that is bad started in 1980. Not so.
3
More than ever, the U.S. could really use a competent and strong woman of integrity as president. Warren has shown that she can get things done and be effective. Honestly none of the men still in the race for the nomination have demonstrated that they know how to get legislation and policy things done at the national level in politics: not Sanders, not Pete, not Biden and not Bloomberg.
12
Actually, Amy Klobuchar has been a very effective legislstor_ don't overlook her!
Krugman straight up criticizes the way billionaires make their money on wall street. They bargain for their cash wheeling and dealing, not actually producing something of value. They earn empty dollars. There is nothing behind them of palpable value. Ok. So what? Is that similar to playing to the investors all the time short term rather actually investing in product for the long term. Yes. For stability, long term is better. Everyone makes more money producing long term rather than borrowing against short term profits.
4
All due respect but talking about financialization and fraud will fall on deaf ears. Restoring income gains and a share of wealth to the working and middle class is the message that will resonate with voters. Sanders by staying on message is the one candidate who people believe will focus more on helping provide them a level playing field.
5
Very interesting column. The issues you have raised are intriguing including raising the specter that the financialization of the U.S. economy has contributed to the poor performance of the economy in the distribution of income and increased concentration of wealth, not only in the U.S. but globally. Of course, I agree but I am not certain that the news media and the larger public ranks this problem as high as the costs of health insurance, and the cost and performance of healthcare delivery system.
I am waiting until Super Tuesday results are out before I decide which Democrat would be best to defeat Trump and have the political coattails to restore a Democratic majority in the Senate and the House.
I think it is important for the Democratic nominee to know and be able to convincingly communicate and define the top 4 or 5 major issues that government can solve and have a believable, easily communicated, vision of what his or her administration will do to make life better for the whole of society including the priority of global climate change and how they would carry out a green new deal and take care of the social and economic dislocations in the U.S. and global economy as the fossil fuel disinvestment occurs.
Clearly, Mr. Trump's denial of fossil fuels being connected to global warming is wrong headed and will do harm disqualifies him for reelection. I also believe the candidate and the media must sort out the immigration issue.
"Zombies" is a great tutorial.
1
If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, all he has to do is to repeatedly call Donald Trump a communist to negate any negativity surrounding his being a socialist. Communist trumps socialist in negativity. The proof, just show clips of the Donald schmoozing and fawning over Putin, Xi, and Kim. His authoritarianism and favoring his friends is right up there with the best of the communist dictators past and present. In communist countries there are a 1% favored elite and 99% other. The Donald loves a "managed" economy where the elite get more and more benefits, while the rest eat crumbs.
15
I agree Warren is a great candidate. Where I disagree is that her support for Medicare for All was some sort of misstep. 70 percent of Americans support a single-payer health care system and the rest of the western world already has one, and yet liberal and conservative pundits alike continue to tell us it’s impossible and unrealistic. This is an issue of political will versus corruption. Let’s be truthful about the hurdles because they’re fixable.
11
Elizabeth Warren is hands down the best candidate for president. She showed why last night.
Dr. Krugman is right about Medicare for All. The mistake that Warren made with M4A is an outgrowth of her strengths -- policy smarts and boldness. Warren favors M4A because it is the best policy solution to the problem. Unfortunately, it's a bridge too far politically.
8
Sunday's NYT article about Michael Bloomberg piqued my interest in his candidacy. His performance Wednesday rather dampened it -- he was flat unprepared for obvious and predictable lines of attack.
Paul Krugman's observation that Bloomberg has not himself (so far as Krugman knows) engaged in destructive financial wheeling and dealing;; but has, instead, got rich selling equipment to destructive wheeler dealers has given me further pause for thought.
Elizabeth Warren remains the choice in this voting household.
13
Intent on labels, the questioners want to call Sanders a socialist, and got Warren to agree that she favors capitalism. Sanders' supporters may reject her for this, despite her progressive work and policies as a member of the Democratic party.
3
I have been disgusted for years that so much about public companies today has been focused on quarterly profits to the exclusion of everything else. I invest in companies that make products I would use. I want to be paid dividends if they do well. The day trader ethos of buy low, sell high, regardless of the social utility of the company, is just gambling without the fun of going to Vegas.
4
America's industrial competitiveness and technological edge started its steady decline as finance and management (people with basically redundant ceremonial but expensive degrees like MBA) started getting more importance in corporate America and even in institutions of higher education and research.
And as those two rose, general Americans and US economy took a hit and its share in global trade/economy started shrinking.
6
"so-called Medicare for all — which isn’t going to be enacted, no matter who wins "
Dr. Krugman is very confident in this appraisal. Should he be? After all the US would almost need to elect fifty senators who are as progressive as Sanders and Warren to get something like this into law.
So, is it silly of Bernie Sanders to make a strong stand on such a policy proposal? I don't think so. For one, even if Mr. Sanders is not able to get such a policy passed if he is elected president, he will have four years to prod and nudge Americans from the bully pulpit into favoring such a system. Eventually he may be able to convince Americans that we need such a system.
Clearly, Medicare for All is the best health care system which America could adopt because everybody would be insured for health problems and the costs would be borne through a progressive income tax system. Other than the hassle of instituting such a system, what is not to like? Of course those who have health care through their employer don't want to risk giving everybody health care because it might raise their taxes somewhat. Once again greed comes into play.
Maybe instead of criticizing Sanders for pushing for such a system and also criticizing Warren for going along with it, Krugman should be willing to praise a politician who is willing to put all on the line so that everyone is covered by health insurance.
Then again, maybe Krugman is not the progressive champion that he appears to be.
4
@Tom Krebsbach
Krugman is a champion of neoliberal politicians like his hero Hillary Clinton. He is so embedded in the corporate class as an employee of The New York Times Corporation that he has expressed admiration for European social programs including socialized medical care going so far last week to write that citizens in those countries are happier and have more freedom than Americans, while writing again and again that it can't happen here. Why not? Either Krugman thinks Americans don't deserve the benefits that citizens elsewhere enjoy, or that they're too stupid to understand how their lives would improve in a system where health care is a right, especially when it is explained to them by a Nobel Prize winning economist, or he 's too comfortable carrying water for his corporate masters.
Many Dems are getting tired of hearing how M4A, or any other variation on universal healthcare, is a no-go. It would be phased in over a period of time, people could supplement with private insurance (like in Europe) and it would actually be significantly cheaper than the motley system we have now. The concept has to be pitched intelligently. At the end of the day, it's really the only alternative to healthcare insolvency.
14
@Innocent Bystander
I have Medicare and a supplemental plan through United Health Care. My experience is that it works; I fell and fractured my collar bone. Many doctor visits, x-rays, and rehab cost me $13 for office visits and $45 for a sling. An immediate family member pays more than $500/month for disaster coverage. MfA would ensure basic health care for all; expensive ER visits for common illnesses would stop; rural communities would benefit, as would all. Expanded health care services would provide a lot of productive jobs. The increase in taxes would not be prohibitive. We already pay for SS and Medicare.
3
"Warren stumbled badly, making herself a long shot for the nomination, by trying to appease supporters of Bernie Sanders."
Uhm... Bernie Sanders became the front runner during that time with those same policies that she was embracing.
You're suggesting that she would have done better had she rejected Bernie Sanders' policies, despite the fact that those policies propelled him into a such a lead that Michael Bloomberg himself warned yesterday that Sanders may already have enough of a lead that he can't be stopped?
It's a modern wonder of the world to see what otherwise intelligent people come up with in their near-hysterical panic that a politician proposing that we become slightly more like Denmark might become President.
8
What matters is defeating President Trump in the upcoming election, for the good of the country. I do not care about debate performance. Bloomberg will not run out of money and he will hit below the belt on the campaign trail. In other words, he will campaign like a Republican. And while Republicans may be terrible at governance, they are good at winning elections.
4
Mike isn’t the president we need. If he’s so invested in saving our representative democracy, he should drop out and throw his weight behind Sanders winning.
6
@Lilly I like many of Sanders’ ideas. However, there are huge parts of the country who will not vote for him. The Trumpists will demonize him as a Socialist, and sadly many in the electorate will buy it.
1
Bloomberg wasn't simply thrown out of the ring, he was catapulted unceremoniously out, into a trajectory towards the sun, where his demise will not even be noticed.
The intent of the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Biden Democratic Party by picking Bloomberg as the back-up for Biden, to undermine Bernie Sanders, failed spectacularly; embarrassingly.
Anyone not seeing the light at this stage in this game is simply willfully obtuse; our Democratic Party is being who they have always been, which of course is the protector of the status quo they do desperately want to maintain.
Regardless, last night we saw a brilliant dawn break across our land, we saw it unapologetically light up Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as our champions, showing us that either one will be our 46th President and the other our Vice President.
Our beaten-up, and beaten-down nation, so badly done in by Trump and his Republican partners is being called upon to not stay down for the count, but spring back up and show all the doubters that we are alive, we believe in decency, we believe in respect, and we are about to reclaim our place as the champions of the poor, the middle-class, and all of the people.
To watch the pretenders on that stage last night get exposed and made nearly irrevelant was divine.
Nevada this weekend will add to Bernies' momentum, South Carolina will do the same; the Super Tuesday results will cause our Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Biden democrats to finally fully back Bernie.
9
@Mel Farrell
Pelosi got Obama's ACA passed. She is not Republican lite; she is a powerful Democratic leader.
There were no wheeling and dealing as there is on Wall Street? I have a feeling historians who studied the Morgans, Astors, Rockefellers, Stanford, etc. would disagree with your assertion.
Wall street, regardless if you like their activities or not plays a large part in creating an efficient capital market where companies can raise funds at the lowest possible rates and serves as an efficient conduit for investors willing to take on risks and fund startup companies. Part of the tools required to create such a market is access to market information and analytics. Bloomberg was at the right place and the right time to provide such tools via his business. To say his company had no material impact on our economy is wrong.
4
The reason Bernie is vague on the specifics is obvious: look what specifics got Warren. Some pundits and well-educated white people love it, but then the press turns all its guns on you and blows you out of the water.
Besides which, realistically, there is NO WAY to price Medicare-for-All; nobody has any idea how much unmet need there is among the un- and under-insured — not to mention the inclusion of dental. Even if you could cost it, it’s pointless, because the legislative process will rip whatever plan to shreds.
So the only real incentive to getting into the minutiae is if you’re looking for endorsements from papers that nobody listens to, or pundits that nobody trusts. Most actual voters aren’t that concerned with the details so much as they’re skeptical of the candidate’s commitment. Bernie understands this. It’s not like he’s not versed in the granular details, he just knows they’re a disastrous retail product.
As far as wasting capital on unwinnable fights... I really don’t know where you get that from. Like, take an honest look at his record. Warren was the one who burned capital picking fights with the Obama administration over appointees; Bernie used no capital in taking a symbolic stand against the Bush tax cuts.
One of the most fascinating things is how consistently Bernie Sanders’s political acumen is underestimated. I really think it’s a class thing - the liberal intelligentsia just can’t accept someone who talks that way knows what he’s doing.
4
@seb Williams.
If I understand your argument...
He’s vague on specifics because specifics don’t get you anywhere (implying he has specifics that he should not reveal )
But there’s no way to estimate specifics (So now he doesn’t have specifics) but if there was , it’ll get ripped to shreds.
So if you had specifics, which are impossible to estimate, you shouldn’t reveal them unless you’re looking for endorsements from papers that no one reads or pundits that no one listens to.
And Bernie demonstrates his political acumen by only taking symbolic stands.
Pretty Trumponian argument. I hope he can clean that up before the convention
5
Apart from Bloomberg’s weaknesses on stop and frisk and treatment of women, his answer on whether he deserved his wealth was particularly telling and inept. He deserved it because he worked hard, which is a non sequitur, given many other people work pretty hard without getting a fraction of what he has. A perfect example of the perverse rewards that financialisation of the economy. Surely much smarter to say that it’s important to reward people for innovation and building successful companies, while acknowledging the need to pay more tax at the top end.
7
I guess Bloomberg is so special he deserves billions for working hard yet plenty of hard working people in this country can’t even get $15/hr.
7
It’s hard to be a genius. The bullies just hate it.
Mr. Krugman, I remember your theoretical support for the public option during the Obamacare debate. Both you and Obama meekly bargained it away in a flash, with no fight.
Have you learned nothing of negotiation from that experience?
You have to ask for the full loaf to end up with a few slices.
Whatever Bernie and Elisabeth are asking for will meet the reality of needing to compromise.
Why are you asking them to compromise before the negotiation begins?
Look at how single payer developed in my country’s Canada.
It was incremental, but started with a principled position that we have an obligation to look after one another.
Provinces got on board as the popularity of the program spread and public pressure increased.
According to you, Sanders will fail if he doesn’t get M4A through Congress. I suggest you take a broader look at how change actually happens.
10
I disagree that the terminals do not do anything productive. More efficient capital markets create more liquidity. Thats where capital comes from for a variety of things from business growth to housing development
2
I'm in favor of subsidized child care and college for poor people. I'm not in favor of them for the comfortably off middle class who just want to save money.
5
So, professor, you think 'Medicare for all' has no chance, and apparently wonder how to pay for it. First, Sanders as POTUS and congress in Dem. control, we can enact it. How to pay for it. There are two premiums: 1.) Eliminating private health insurance gives back to the people that 30% admin. fee--ins. companies cost. (Plus, capital going into ins. co. stock goes elsewhere.) 2.) the latest calculation of all costs to the U.S. of Mideast wars (presumably since 2003, or going back G.H.W.'s '91 effort), that cost totals over $6 trillion. Enough for Medicare for All, cancel all student debt, free 4 years college for all U.S. citizens.--and change. Would that happen? The only politician we could possibly trust for it is
Sanders. Personally, I think he'd do it.
Again, he would need a Dem. congress. Not impossible if a Sanders presidency is possible.
4
I think you’re right stressing the point for Democrats to intensify the fight against excessive ‘financialization’ of the economy and against systemic fraud and corruption. But that inequality is a central issue in the U.S. is something that cannot be overridden. And Education and Health Care are the most valuable foundation to not only improve citizens lives but to fund more equality at the core. And that should be the Democrat ultimate proposal if they want to be a credible alternative to the G.O.P./Trump’s laissez faire.
3
As important as financial profiteering and fraud are, it is not high on the list of most Democratic voters, nor will it be a vote getter. Those defrauded can’t figure out how they are being victimized, and the middle class are happy to have all those financial services even if they are being ripped off.
On the other hand, everyone hates the current health insurance system, despite what Amy and Pete are trying to sell. Child care and student loans are big issues that are on voters minds. Sanders is articulating the reality that many see daily, especially the young.
The rest of the candidates are speaking to the well off or the retired who already have a form of socialism, and they are telling the young people with all the problems that they can’t be members of the same happy club.
4
@Jazz Paw I suspect the average American with money in the stock market doesn't know the fine details of how the market works.
I’m not so sure the average American even has money in the stock market.
3
So Sanders wants all workers, including the lowest level workers, to own a part of the business where they work? He wants wealthy folks to shed their wealth by giving it to the workers. How is this NOT Communism?
3
@Patrick McGregor
Was the US a communist country in the 1950s? Giving all employees the right to buy stock as part of their compensation package was quite common. As was near-free public college.
4
@Viv
In some businesses, that practice still happens, but only with the top level executives. You know, those folks who make decisions about the direction of the company, like the CEO and CFO. It's part of their "compensation package", made quite profitable when that exec "pays stock at a lower rate and able to sell it at a much higher rate. The difference, however, that Sanders is proposing is not this practice at all. He's describing something more like the Robin Hood approach: take from the rich and give to the poor.
Like the UAW having a piece of GM?
I thought that Warren did Sanders bidding last night like a VP candidate. I am very concerned how inflexible she is whole not giving details.
However my concern about Warren goes back to the financial crises based on two issues. First . Whether the CPB did a good job and whether it was under control, the biggest ripoff at that time and now is the lack of responsibility that financial institutions take for assessing the economy and hide themselves and others from the risks in their assets. It’s easy to explain but not justifiable that banks were being bailed out while shares could still be purchased. People were just betting that there was a greater fool out there and the CEOs could get money out. Second, when people list their equity and needed lower interest rates her suggestions were extending mortgages to 40 yrs when that was ridiculous and insuring accounts for much higher amounts letting banks get protected when they make risky investments. Those were panic moves which showed poor instincts and questions her point that she is a capitalist.
1
It is patently obvious that Warren is the most qualified, intelligent, experienced, pragmatic person of all of the D candidates, and it amazes me that her polling numbers aren't much higher.
Although, come to think of it, I suppose it shouldn't amaze me: she is, after all, a woman. Can you imagine how high she would be polling right now if she were a man? She's an experienced senator, regularly expresses her belief in the virtues of capitalism (which surely should mean she has the solid support of all those currently wringing their hands over Bernie's "socialism" and thus his elect-ability), and supports policies a majority of Americans want (universal healthcare, increased regulation of polluting and financially-abusive industries, increased financial access to higher education, etc.). What's not to love? But she might as well not exist, for all the attention the press is showing her.
At the end of the day, it seems that America is still not grown up enough to feel comfortable with an intelligent woman like Warren.
72
You're right on all points and your first sentence captures Bloomberg and Warren. May the force of Elizabeth Warren be with us!
30
Financialization ruined businesses by saddling them with huge debt. It ruined workers by taking their retirement funds when companies are broken up, and by taking their benefits as they are downsized to lower paying jobs that also took their incomes. Then it ruined their savings too, especially home values.
However, it did one more major thing for the wealthy. It vastly increased the expected and accepted standards for "return on investment."
It used to be that 10% was an excellent rate of return. Now 20% is expected, and more often obtained.
From where? Not from running the business well. It comes from financialization.
It is leveraging of the investments using huge loans, with the huge rate of return as the upside taken privately, and the risks of failure to repay those loans socialized to saving those too big to fail.
Business cycle goes up, they win. Business cycle goes down, somebody else loses.
Of course those who are in a social position to have access to the financial levers also end up owning all the assets.
They can borrow the money to "buy" them with other people's money. If they can repay, then they make a huge rate of return AND end up owning the asset. If they can't, they take the rate of return and somebody else must bail out the loans.
Krugman is right, but he has space here to fully explain only half the con going on these last decades.
7
Getting rich (or poor) off stock investments was a trend in the 19th century--not new.
2
The US health insurance industry continued its tremendous growth trend as it experienced a significant increase in net earnings to $23.4 billion and an increase in the profit margin to 3.3% in 2018.
UnitedHealth Group CEO David Wichmann's total compensation for 2018 was $21.5 million.
The myth here is that the US cannot afford Medicare for all. Not when healthcare is a Wall Street product, with massive overhead and multi-million dollar payouts to CEOs. Rigged.
21
Paul is absolutely correct. A significant percentage of today's problems can be traced back to the historical change in American business when we went from 'making things' to those getting rich from 'sloshing money' around, It's been a historical and disastrous change for ordinary Americans on so many levels. In fact, because I was one of the 'makers' I found it necessary to leave the US for a better life.
There was reportedly a conversation one day between Tony Blair and Angela Merkel. He had asked what was the secret sauce behind the German economic success. She responded in four simple words. "We still make things."
Krugman is right. No candidate discusses this simple economic fact, but returning to that mantra is one of many changes that needs to happen.
17
The billionaires don’t want that because they think they make more this way. Perhaps they will, until the impoverished masses finally have had enough and burn it all down. And this is exactly what will happen if nothing is done.
I think there's a pretty good case to be made that Bloomberg terminals made for a far more transparent bond market, which used to be a very opaque market and now is less so. The argument could go further and say that better bond prices for pension funds improved the returns of those funds. It could further be argued that more efficient, transparent pricing lowered the interest rate on municipal bonds, surely a boon to issuers.
4
That’s nice for the five people who still have traditional pensions.
@Smilodon7 Millions do - state and city workers, Federal workers for starters. Do they simply not matter? Then there's the better financing terms that help cities and states, are you indifferent to those as well?
I like Elizabeth Warren’s intelligence and determination and record of supporting and defending underdogs, that is, consumers who are up against big businesses. I think she would be an excellent president.
66
@Jeh1957
I like her plans too. But when she pushes such plans, with too many supporters, she may take her eyes off the ball, which is beating Donald trump.
Trump's poll numbers are gradually rising. Most Republicans will vote for him. They're good at planting scare and/or suspicion in people's minds by telling, as GW Bush did, "It's your money. She, or Bernie, is going to tax you to death for their 'socialist' programs. Socialism doesn't work, etc, etc." The chances for Trump to be reelected will rise.
Why take that chance. I wish she & Bernie Sanders moderated their stance. Keep them in mind. Implement as much as you can, AFTER either of them is elected. You don't have to scare people beforehand.
All Democratic presidential candidates are progressive enough. All believe in taxing the rich more, increasing social safety net programs and implementing Universal healthcare. They ought not to be so rigid.
If Elizabeth Warren softens her approach, which may or may not be feasible now, she has an excellent chance to be the first female president. About 50% of the men & 60% of the women want to see a woman elected president, I believe. But not any woman.
Since there isn't much chance for Warren to become a viable candidate, I am supporting Pete Buttigieg who is phenomenally gifted, though a little too young-looking and also gay. If Warren gets the nomination I would like to see her pick Buttigieg as her running mate.
1
@A.G. Oh, please. If folks would just stop looking at the polls and listen to what the candidates are saying, match that up to what you think is best for the country as a whole and then vote. You are falling for the same GOP scare tactics you decry. Take the risk! Vote for the person YOU think we need to clean up the mess of the last 3+ years.
4
Excellent VP with Bernie as President.
Elizabeth Warren is the heir to FDR's New Deal that the Republicans have been trying to demolish since the 70's - not socialist Sanders as his supporters would like us to think. FDR was hated by the business class just like Warren but he saved capitalism with the New Deal and saved the gains to labor in 1940 when he had to get the business class to work with the government to prepare for war. Sorry for the history lesson but if there were a crisis facing the US population now (covid 19?) she is the only one who has the knowledge, compassion and the ability to get something done ( CFPB anyone?) to get capitalism on the right track and get us out of the moral mess we are in. Sanders is a great rabble - rouser but how much has he accomplished in all of his many years in congress?
36
I've got news for Krugman. If the Bloomberg Terminal was only a system to help Wall Street traders execute trades, Bloomberg would not be among the top 10 richest people in the country. The Bloomberg system delivers virtually every conceivable type of business, financial and economic information useful to businesses of all kinds, journalists, lawyers, PR agencies, government regulators, economists (!) and scholars. And it facilitates all sorts of analyses. Try it sometime, Paul.
17
Elizabeth Warren did very well to disclose the twelve + Not Disclosure Agreements in Bloomberg life, BUT she should think of and ask for the same to the HUNDREDS Not Disclosure Agreements in Harvard University life -- since she is so active. Otherwise sounds like desperation or hypocrisy for her. She stands on hundreds of people who cannot speak at all to what they endured. E.W. enjoys privileges that others cannot. Therefore, if M. B. is guilty of NDA, so it is her former employer: Harvard University. As the lawyers who have worked and are working for Harvard know.
3
Are we all expected to pay for our employer’s sins now?
Except Warren does not own Harvard and most certainly does not set Harvard policy.
@Luc Was Warren involved in those NDA's? Was she in charge at Harvard? You are deflecting.
"Bloomberg has, in effect, made his billions off a financial arms race that costs vast sums but leaves everyone pretty much back where they started."
Krugman must be aware of the Grossman-Stiglitz paradox, which implies that if financial institutions spend money on new information (and technology that provides it, such as Bloomberg terminals), they find it useful for their bottom line.
@alecs Is the paradox that by spending money, they're making it?
@Katalina - the paradox questions an influential efficient market hypothesis (EMH) according to which prices instantly reflect all new information. If true, then any investments in collection and analysis of new information don't make sense. But since institutions do spend their money on new information, they profit from it and EMH is not correct.
Moderate democrats need to get used to the idea that Bernie will likely be our next president. It doesn't matter if he can successfully implement all his ideas. All long as he's willing to try, he's getting my vote.
10
@Markymark
If Bernie is the nominee, Trump will be our president for another four long, agonizing years. Perhaps living in San Francisco makes you blind to what kind of candidate people in other parts of the country are willing to vote for. As someone who lives in a battleground state, I can tell you that my neighbors will not be voting for Bernie.
7
As a middle of the road kind of voter, I have in my business career been involved with many things Warren rails against and fixed. Spot on. I like her tenacity and ability to express her ideas.
The turn off: Medicare for all...which I think will work but needs to be implemented incrementally.
The wealth tax...novel idea but implementation is very questionable. Bloomberg's tax plan is the best I have seen from any of the candidates as it is doable.
ABT...anybody but Trump
9
The only thing that matters is defeating Trump. Bloomberg has the best chance, for several reasons: he is not intimidated and will not be distracted by Trump, and he will not be out-spent by Trump (plus Adelson et al). The other members of the Vegas circular firing squad hardly mentioned Trump last night. Bloomberg has been doing so, and he did again last night, rightfully calling out Bernie's no-chance policies. I like Bernie and Senator Professor Warren very much, but I don't think either can beat The Donald.
15
@JayDubya Every person who will only vote for Bloomberg among the Democrats is matched by other voters who won’t vote for Bloomberg no matter what. His chances are no better than Sanders and probably worse. Stop taking Democrats for granted by sacrificing them to the voters who aren’t Democrats.
@JayDubya Elizabeth Warren wiped the floor with him in the debate and will do the same against Trump. She is brilliant, knowledgeable, passionate, caring and fiercely competitive with a quick wit. Bloomberg was totally out-gunned, out-classed and looked like a fool. The only thing he has going for him at this point are his billions and his willingness to buy his next shiny toy, the presidency of the United States.
When I listen to Bernie Sanders, I hear the echo of FDR. He was also called a socialist and a communist. He created many of the socialist programs we have today, like social security. I am a senior citizen who grew up in poverty, welfare and government food handouts, but realized the American dream and got a Ph.D. I doubt that many people here really know poverty and worrying about having enough food. Eating nothing but potatoes the last few days of the month until the government gives you more food. Bernie is leading a revolution of the young and disenfranchised and I am a boomer for Bernie! I have never contributed money to a politician, but I contributed to Bernie. We are going to shock the nation and elect the supposedly unelectable Senator Bernie Sanders. Of course, I understand that America is the only rich nation that cannot afford medical care for all and free public college education, that we cannot fight big business and corporate ownership of our lives and government, that we are helpless in trying to fight for our lives against money, but I will vote for Bernie.
14
I’m sure there are people here who know poverty. If not now, at some point in their lives.
@Westcoast Texan
FDR had one advantage no candidate today has; he had a sociopath marching through Europe starting WWII. FDR was able to marshal our industrial might and our population in the effort to defeat Hitler and the Axis. All hands on deck, either in the military or working in industries geared up for war. Europe had Churchill who vowed to fight the Nazis on the beaches, in the fields ... We have seen nothing to compare to those two giants who could speak to the free world in speeches still quoted.
In all fairness, the Bloomberg terminal was a lot more than getting financial info a few seconds faster. It was the lifeblood of the financial industry. It was instant online communication, stock and commodity pricing long before the internet. It was really an amazing product.
10
It's about time we started to see something other than the same old statements. I didn't watch the debate last night. But my worries about this election are how many of the lies Trump is telling are being taken at face value by his supporters and those who are die hard Republicans. I am concerned about how hard it's become for Americans with opposing views to have a discussion about anything more serious than the day's weather (and even that's a problem).
I have watched America change from a country where it was possible to work hard and get somewhere to one where medical care has become a luxury item, where decent affordable housing in good school districts is a rarity, where a job that has benefits is hard to get, and to a country where selfishness is the norm rather than the exception.
Trump is not to blame for most of this. We are. We have voted against our own interests because we liked the words tax cuts, balanced budget, and smaller government. We believed Ronald Reagan when he talked about welfare queens, morning in America, and so on. We have refused to admit to our part in the state of America. The truth is that we are not kind to each other, we do not care about each other, and we don't want to help our fellow Americans if they aren't the right sort of people. Trump and the GOP have played on this admirably. If we want things to change we have to get out and vote.
2/20/2020 9:39pm first submit
41
I support Warren for president, but I'm wondering if she and the others remember that Bloomberg promised to support whoever wins the nomination?
The way they treated him, he just might change his mind.
13
@Jules He should have stuck to offering support rather than expecting to parachute in and be the party's savior. That is just ego. It's just not a good look.
2
@jules I was wondering if she actually would accept his money?
So what? He should get the kid glove treatment just because he has money?
Medicare for all or Medicare for anyone who wants to opt in needs to happen. I am tired of economically comfortable pundits such as Mr. Krugman reinforcing the idea that this is a pipe dream. The United States expedentially out spends all other countries on the military budget. So much so that trillions - do you know how much that is? - goes unaccounted for. Time to trim the fat and focus OUR hard earned tax dollars on Medicare for ALL.
15
Sanders has most of his supports that are young and idealistic, the same that went for McGovern, while those former McGovern supporters from the Baby Boom generation are now in their 70s, having learned from the hard knock of life with a sense of cynicism stay away in drones from Sanders. Obvious from those loyal Sanders' bros there is a large trace of misogynism in their condemning Warren for daring to question Sanders, their avatar. I fear we are due to repeat history with the impulsive of youth with dire consequence with 4 more years of Trump.
6
This article is spot on. It highlights how Elizabeth Warren’s message has been drowned out by the more “soap opera” appeal of the other candidates. Elizabeth Warren has a message that would enable her to pivot to the general election and maybe even win over Republicans:
- she was a Republican for many years when facing the day to day struggles most Americans do
- she thought government was all bad and capitalism and free market all good
- BUT she educated herself and learned the free market isn’t working for most Americans
- she still believes in capitalism, but restoring healthy and fair competition and focus on enriching the people making the businesses go, vs the investors and shareholders of the businesses who never lift a finger to make a product
As for her healthcare plan, it doesn’t have to be “Medicare for All”. it could be a universal coverage system like the Netherlands that is government subsidized but offers a role for a heavily regulated insurance industry on a short leash. Warren needs to carve her own brand on healthcare because she is getting pulled into the artificially binary “Medicare for All or bust” debate.
It’s too bad she is being typecast as “in the Bernie camp”, as she is truly unique and needed by our country at a time like this.
33
Mr. Krugman gets the cause of slow down in family income entirely wrong .
To cite Thomas Piketty, author of "Capital in the 20ths Century" who studied the phenomenon in much more detail than Mr. Krugman.
"The free circulation of capital, goods and services with no collective regulation or joint fiscal or social policy functions primarily to the benefit of the richest and the most mobile, and undermines the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable."
Piketty blog Feb 11, 2020
Why would Mr. Krugman not admit this ? Because he spent his entire career advocating that globalization was good for all.
It is not. Indeed, it impoverished American workers by pushing their wages down to the global average
6
Both have contributed to this.
Yes! Krugman is riding on his Trade Theory Nobel Prize.
You are absolutely correct. The Times should hire Piketty, Saez or Zuckman. PK is stale.
Instead of debates that create sword fights between candidates, and weaken them all, we need to hear about how they could use their strengths in a united government. Who wouldn't vote for a government with Bloomberg as its financial steward?
3
Mr. Krugman: Thank you for pointing out that the financial services industry’s share of GDP has doubled drawing talent and resources from productive activities. I hope in future columns you will write more on this point as you always do so in particularly lucid fashion. It would be especially interesting to address the correlation of growth of the financial services’ share of the economy and income inequality in America - highly correlated I’m sure. That and the fact the wheeler dealer Wall Street classes had a lot to do with driving companies to outsource increasing higher value added manufacturing to China.
5
I agree with much of Krugman says here—particularly on the importance of Warren's effort to rein in the excesses Wall Street. But I disagree with Krugman on Warren's healthcare plan. Yes, it will be very difficult to enact a comprehensive single-payer plan like the one Warren is promoting, but doing so is the most promising way to actually solve the healthcare problem the US faces. None of the other proposed plans will result in universal coverage or in care that is truly affordable for lower and middle income working people—the kind of people who have too much income to qualify for large subsidies under the ACA or Medicaid, but too little income to easily afford tens of thousands of dollars in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance charges each year. Giving up on that plan because it will be hard to enact is the kind of capitulation that is making America a state that fails to deliver what its citizens need. One of the great attractions of Warren as a candidate is that she doesn't take the easy way out and she doesn't give up when faced with challenging obstacles to an admirable goal.
23
Even getting a good sized subsidy is no guarantee that one can afford the deductibles, coinsurance & copays. Then there’s the surprise medical bills that could bankrupt almost anybody.
1
Financial reform, unlike health care
------------------
Financial reforms, given the role big money plays is virtually impossible. May be if Dems win it all, as President Obama had for 2 years, Financial Reforms would be possible. Even then, the risk of over-correction that will lead to an unwieldy, creaky setup that wrecks economy is much too high.
Better bet perhaps is a moderate candidate, who leaves the 'nuts and bolts' of Financial reforms to Treasury Secretary. A President who protects policy making from populist political pitches, to make room for genuine reforms.
1
I remain puzzled Paul by your continued opposition to Sanders and his agenda which would do much to roll back the system to the FDR New Deal model that promotes the sharing of prosperity. Or if you prefer a more current model, like Denmark. Liz Warren didn't adopt Bernie's ideas to "appease" his voters, she adopted them because they make sense. The difference between them is that Bernie has fought for these ideas his whole life, while Liz was a late arrival to the party.
It's great that Warren fought to get the CFPB launched, and she is very knowledgeable about the financial industry and its abuses. I wouldn't be upset if she wins the nomination, but the reality is she won't. The best she can hope for is that there is a contested convention and the DNC wants to deny Sanders the nod, they might tap her believing that she would be progressive enough to pull in Bernie's supporters. First, if the DNC overturns the will of the people, they will be causing the end of the party. Second, she has not shown that she can draw support from blacks, browns, and blue collar voters, and that would severely handicap her against Trump.
I'm not sure what the cause of your vendetta against Sanders is Paul, but it doesn't put you in a good light.
6
According to the article, his concern with Sanders is that he will waste time on "unwinnable fights".
8
@Leonard As opposed to wasting time not fighting at all, and compromising to a standstill.
Got it.
1
Warren, the reform capitalist, would be far more acceptable to the older generation than Sanders, the socialist, even with similar policies. We who grew up in the cold war era heard socialism equated with communism over and over again. Bloomberg still talks that way. The label is important. Branding is important.
Warren took down Bloomberg last night and still gets comparatively little notice in the headlines of the Times and WaPo. Democrats badly need someone who is smart, well informed, and not afraid of a fight. But Warren is a woman and a forceful woman is "nasty" and "shrill." We have to get past that.
Is universal health care a pipe-dream? Are Warren (and Bernie) pushing an impractical liberal fantasy? We are faced with the threat of a severe epidemic, Covid-19. But 27 million Americans are uninsured and about 40 million underinsured. That discourages them from getting diagnosed and treated when they first develop symptoms. That's 67 million potential typhoid Marys. Universal medical care isn't a luxury or even a right. It's a necessity.
It's the same with the climate crisis, which Sanders and Warren both understand must be confronted. The financial cost of failing to do so will be vastly greater than the cost of mitigating it.
Times have changed. Mother nature is an extremist. She laughs at moderate solutions and sends fire, famine, flood and epidemic disease.
16
I feel like Warren is the most qualified candidate, but her messaging has been awful, a turn-off, even for me. Instead of rhetorically railing against the "billionaire class" (Sanders does it also), she should be talking about narrowing the wealth gap in America and the economic and social policies that will serve that end. Her current style implies class warfare that is divisive and makes enemies of the rich and powerful. The latter approach would explain to all that our current system of capitalism cannot be sustained and that it is gradually cooking the goose that lays the golden egg for all Americans: namely a vibrant, productive middle class.
7
@Kent So would you not vote for her because you dislike her messaging or would you vote for her because you agree with her message? Perhaps you could relay to her your thoughts - she does listen, after all, unlike so many of the GOP who only listen to Trump who only listens to Hannity, Miller, and the Falwell types.
2
Prof. Krugman is incorrect about what a Bloomberg terminal and its associated software provides. The notion that the primary purpose is to provide prices or other financial data more quickly conflates algorithmic trading with financial analysis.
The Bloomberg terminals are primarily used for analysis of different types of businesses and the securities or loans or other financial instruments used to fund their operations.
Prof. Krugman might try using a Bloomberg some day instead of guessing wrongly about what they do. There’s a raft of economic data available via one of these devices. You know, you can always learn something.
7
There is more than this that is wrong about Krugman’s article but you are certainly correct about what you say.
As we have become more aware, money holds more sway in our political system than people. Mayor Bloomberg has cash. And we are all bombarded by his ads which are quite clever.
Sen. Warren answered questions about the plight of the working and middle classes long before she became a politician and persisted. She has already done things to make the country better for the non-elites. We do ourselves a disservice to forget about her.
--------------------------------
IT IS EARLY. 65 delegates are committed so far in the Dem nomination process. March 3rd will see 1305 delagates chose for the candidates. It is the first time in memory that California will speak before a candidate has been chosen.
NOBODY has lost; NOBODY has won.
We need to watch carefully that there is no funny business in the nominating process. WE ALL NEED TO VOTE.
And when all the smoke has cleared, we need to unite behind whichever candidate was elected and support that person for the general election in Nov. AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE THEREAFTER. Democracy does not just happen every four years.
16
I have been a Warren fan since she first came to Washington--2007, I think? I think her approach makes much more sense than Sanders.
It's hard to discuss financialization without making everybody go to sleep. (I have family members who worked in structured finance and I slept through parts of their tales.) But this was the thing that really took down the economy in 2008. While there were efforts in the Obama era to address this, the Trump administration is rolling back the little bits of legislation that were passed to prevent the worst abuses.
This is the reason I plan to vote for Warren in the primary; I don't get the sense that the other candidates grasp what needs to happen here.
37
I wonder how a "billionaire" candidate would fare if he (think Steyer who was not even in the debate last night) were to launch an ad campaign with real government programs which would seem attractive not only to the public but to corporations.
Let me give an example:
Suppose Steyer or Bloomberg said that he would pass a bill which mandates that medicines (largely) would be produced in factories in the USA and create tons of good paying jobs and that the government would refund to drug makers the difference in costs (over the costs of producing the drugs in China or India) if the refunds were devoted to pure scientific research and/or research into drugs for rare diseases not researched by the market.
There are millions of voters picking up prescriptions every week which, they know, were produced in China and India in labs which could really be doing just about anything to those medicines with impunity.
There's nothing wrong with a little socialist/capitalist blend.
4
Although I understand why Obama saved Wall Street during 2008-2009 there is a part of me that wishes he would have allowed it to crash and burn. Yes we would have had a second "Great Depression", millions more would have lost their jobs and homes but at least it would have tempered the virulent strain of populism that infects us and Trump would still be firing people on TV. Such opportunities don't come along very often but when they do sometimes you just have to roll the dice.
7
@Patrick "... millions more would have lost their jobs and homes ..."
Don't forget the thousands (even millions) who would have LOST THEIR LIVES through sheer destitution. That should put what Obama did in better context.
Now, do you think we should have rolled that dice?
@Patrick I'm 65. I missed the real Great Depression. So did you. I doubt you would enjoy the rerun anymore than you would like a rerun of the Black Death (to shake things up etc).
thank you Dr Krugman. It is always more dignified to lose elections with the best candidate
Dr. Krugman knows that Sanders will not get to implement his ideas in present form but I think Dr. Krugman also knows what Sanders is proposing is the best for the people and the economy down the long road ahead. I'll bet Dr. Krugman supports Sanders.
1
I just donated this last week to a Presidential Candidate for the first time ever in my sixty years! Actually I just donated again tonight--both times to Elizabeth Warren. Because Liz is the only candidate, besides Bernie, who gives more than lip service to the working poor. She shows and represents a profound understanding of the wretched wrenching away of hope an entire class of people are facing.
And that is about healthcare. When your employer pays for your coverage and yet you can't go to a doctor because a) you can't find one taking new patients; or b) because you they're all booked or the $175 copay takes 4 months to save; or c) the "what-if" they find something really bad and you quit your job, lose your coverage, and then your entire family will be on the streets.
I understand the political realities and distortions about passing healthcare. I understand there is no redistribution plan without the authorization of the 1% and the Banks (or the Banks and the 1%) but I do need to understand that someone can feel my pain, and my brother's pain, and my neighbor's pain... because it is the only hope that is left when one has no voice or vote without money.
I decided to forgo tires for my vehicle for another month and sent $50. And it felt great. My vote may not count since Citizen's United but it sure felt great to pretend again and Liz and Bernie both inspire me to give the most precious resource I have to give---pocket change.
21
If Bernie is nominated, elected and attempts to actually implement his health care program and exert government control over drug prices his theories are going to collide head on with reality. According to what I've read from various sources, total drug expenditures, including individuals, doctors offices and hospitals make up about sixteen to eighteen percent of total health care expenses. Since most of these drugs are generics, which are comparatively inexpensive and tend to come from China and India, making game changing cost reductions in that area seem unlikely. Putting everybody on medicare will produce the long wait times for care which are typical of the systems Bernie wants to emulate. Now people on the plan he wants to implement, if they have the financial resources, simply go private and go to the head of the line. Sure, if it's a life threatening emergency, that requires immediate attention, you'll probably get it. Otherwise get on line and those lines can be very, very long. Ask the people in Canada, Ireland and England about there experiences. I have.
@Howard Maybe check your "resources". I expect there are many others that will say just the opposite. Or, state your resources here so we can all read them for enlightenment.
I've felt all along that Warren is the best candidate for President, but I think it's a mistake for her to go for the jugular against her opponents, no matter how much they might deserve it. If she gets the nomination, she will need the help of her Democratic opponents and their supporters. She will also need to convince swing voters in swing states that they should vote for her vs. Trump or a third party candidate or staying home. It shouldn't matter, but likability is still a factor in the decision-making process of many Americans, and she can't afford to alienate voters with too much negativity. Donald Trump provides enough of that.
6
@Larry She was disappearing from sight and unable to get her message out due to fickle media (including NYT) because they cover bloodletting. Her performance in the latest debate brought her to forefront, despite the stupid questions of the moderators whose only intent was to provoke rather than to enlighten. The electoral process is all about the last man standing and you won't be that unless you get into the arena and stand your ground. Can't say I like it either, be she was being erased because she was not in there refuting the stances of the other candidates.
After the failed impeachment and Trump's jump in his approval rating, the Democrats might want to prioritize developing more public support for their programs, such as free healthcare, free higher education, guaranteed minimum basic income, tax cuts for their supporters, open borders and ending regime change wars, that can help them gain the White House next cycle.
3
@Rod Fleming Democrats are NOT for open borders.
I agree with the NY Times endorsement(s). Warren and Klobuchar. Everyone else please leave. Let's debate ideas for the direction of the country. This way, neither the progressive wing nor the moderate wing of the party has to split the vote between multiple candidates occupying the same space. That said, I personally think Warren has needlessly staked out too many positions that will come back to haunt her in the general election.
And sorry Bernie, a plurality does not represent the "will of the people".
8
I take issue with the concept of "financialization" as a detriment to the U.S. economy. Venture capital and private equity and produced the most robust technologically advanced economy in world history. That is not hyperbole. Venture capital money is transforming the world with transformational companies innovating transformational technologies. Fintech is globalizing capital in ways that the old regulated economy of the mid twentieth century could never do. There are now trillions of dollars available for capital projects all over the world. It allows companies started in a bedroom to expand exponentially making new products and services for global markets and labor forces.
Ask anyone familiar with middle market private companies and you will discover the best of class companies are all financed by private equity. The American economy is booming with huge equity markets and vast pools of credit because of the expansion of the U.S. financial system. Bloomberg has made 60 billion dollars from his innovation of financial information for the world's traders and investors. In addition to its benefits to the industry, he is using his fortune for major philanthropic purposes. I don't see the downside in this.
5
@Yankelnevich I don't know if you are right, but it's an interesting point of view anyway.
This is one of the highly informative columns of Dr. Krugman. Bernie Sanders & Mike Bloomberg are criticized, but not severely.
(True, Bloomberg amassed enormous wealth in this financially focused economy. Sanders made a good deal by writing a couple of almost best-seller books to be comfortably in the millionaire class - unlike people like president Obama & yes, Mitt Romney, Sanders didn't share significant amounts with the disadvantaged, though he excoriates billionaires. Bloomberg donates significant amounts to good causes & he says he plans to give away most of his wealth to the needy before he dies, as Bill Gates & Warren Buffets have pledged)
I wish, if it's not too late, both Elizabeth Warren & Sanders got off of their Medicare-for-All & humongous wealth tax, to limit their quest to help the less well-off by hiking taxes on the rich, "whichever way feasible," including taxes on high incomes & on wealth as well as achieving universal healthcare, as much as feasible. All their supporters like other Democrats will understand their limitations. Mention socialism, or for that matter capitalism less often. Then pledge to work with (moderate) Republicans as they have.
One problem with sanders is he's angry, so are his supporters. In the end that'll backfire.
Hope they do that and compete without becoming mean as far too many did yesterday. I support Mayor Pete who became mean to Amy Klobuchar unnecessarily. He's immensely gifted. He should be either the president or VP.
6
A week or two ago (Feb. 9), the political columnist for The Guardian, Will Hutton, wrote that the way to defeat Trump was for a Democratic coalition of the center and the left.
He argued that such a winning coalition would be Bloomberg and Warren because Warren "would be a 'guarantor' the
administration would be progressive."
He wrote, "The challenge of beating a Trump... remains awesome, involving answers to issues of identity as much as economics. We know the populist socialist left can’t do it."
I found it a very convincing argument and worth looking at.
I would knock on doors for Bloomberg/Warren.
4
Five per cent of the voters will determine the outcome in November: Independents and Undecideds. Bernie comes across as angry and rigid, and the Republicans will hang the "socialist revolution" sign around his neck. Can you name one of his legislative achievements? In his statement in the WA state Presidential Primary brochure, he vows to fix every single problem you can think of and remake America. For example, "We will end racism, sexism, homophobia, etc." Really? These are certainly worthy goals, but are reckless promises a sign of good judgment? He will not win over the Independents and Undecideds.
In the same brochure, Elizabeth describes her fight for the middle class and against giant, corporate special interests, in the context of her family background. She comes across as warm, personal, and focused on the two issues underlying everything else.
Biden, Bernie, and Buttigieg together have lost thirty elections. Elizabeth has not lost one. She is the ONLY Democratic candidate to have beaten an incumbent Republican. Also, as Mr. Krugman implies, she is a team player and knows how to get results amid the complexity of D.C. politics.
A championship debater, she will outmaneuver Trump and get under his skin, like Nancy Pelosi. She can beat him.
16
You have to give Mike Bloomberg credit for being a brilliant businessman but that does not make someone qualified for the presidency. He does not have the personality or presence to be president of the US. He became frazzled when Elizabeth Warren quizzed him on his sexism within his company. He defended his actions and made light of his behavior. She persisted and would not let it go. You have to commend her for taking him on.
The loser for the evening was Mike Bloomberg. He did just plain awful during the debates. He was getting attacks from all sides. It was embarrassing. The winner last night was not even debating but attending a rally in Nevada. It was Donald Trump. He is out performing all the Democratic candidates and there is no stopping him. He has more strength and enthusiasm than all the Democrats put together. He has no competition and will win again in November.
4
A few things. The 'wheeling an dealing' of the 80's set the stage for the housing bubble and the wheeling and dealing in property during the Bush the younger era. And Trump has always been a part of the free wheeling era at which he failed miserably with his numerous bankruptcies.
Bloomberg's equipment which priced most of us out of Wall Street set the stage for the huge growth in income inequality and left most of us wage slaves.
Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the democratic candidates had an easy target in Michael Bloomberg and to me did not make her look presidential, but only someone taking advantage of an opportunity. She is a strong candidate, but I am not sure this attack mode helped her chances despite some pundits saying otherwise.
3
GOP dedication to working Americans:
No infrastructure jobs.
No clean energy jobs.
No affordable health insurance.
No affordable higher education.
No help for Social Security or Medicare.
No consumer protection.
No raise to federal minimum wage.
No Medicare drug pricing competition.
No end to the trillions gifted to millionaires and billionaires.
33
unfortunately Warren and Sanders as well are unelectable because of substantial unlikeability; personas projecting extreme anger and pettiness. Couple that with policy prescriptions quickly rejected by more moderate voters in key states and districts, equals Trump reelected.
Bloomberg and Biden to a lesser extent are the only ones currently in the field with a realistic chance.
Hold your nose and hope for a Bloomberg/ Klobuchar ticket.
4
No. Bloomberg would be Trump on steroids. A rapacious billionaire with authoritarian leanings who isn’t totally incompetent? No thanks. Way too dangerous.
1
@nastyboy
I would not need to hold my nose for that ticket.
Thanks for pointing this out:
"One key piece of the reforms instituted after the 2008 financial crisis, the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was Warren’s brainchild. Furthermore, by all accounts the bureau was wildly successful, saving ordinary families billions, until the Trump administration set about eviscerating it."
Elizabeth Warren has the best track record of any Democrat candidate for heer own beneficial legislation she's put into law.
Voters should pay attention to that part of her record.
19
Warren and Biden will be at Nevada CNN town hall tonight. In 2016 some were pushing for a Biden / Warren ticket, but Joe was understandably too messed up to run. In a perfect world Warren (on the ropes yesterday) would honestly assess her likelihood of winning the nomination considering Sanders’s rise and Bloomberg’s arrival, tamp down ego as necessary (which may be difficult today) and approach Biden to make that happen within the next few weeks. An announcement of their alliance before Super Tuesday is likely the only chance for a center lane not to be buried by Sanders (at only 30%) and asphyxiated by Bloomberg. Beyond having a significantly greater probability of winning in November and preventing down ballot damage, a Biden / Warren ticket would be unequaled in foreign / domestic policy, considering others in the field, and could help elevate the importance of the Vice President, a project Obama / Biden started. I hope it’s not too late for this to happen.
2
@Gibby Biden is past his prime and I would never put him at the head of a ticket. I'm interested in knowing why you think Biden/Warren and not Warren/Biden if they are your preferred candidates?
I saw Bloomberg and Warren conversing in what appeared to be a very pleasant and friendly manner immediately post debate. It is my fantasy that Bloomberg is going through this exercise not to become the nominee himself but to amass enough delegates to prevent Sanders from a majority at the convention. He can then throw his support to the runner up with the best smarts and toughest debate presence, and hopefully give her the majority. Warren's attack on him made him hopeful she could the one.
4
The column is merely a TV review. The Times should stop pretending these are debates. They are simply the Democrats version of "The Apprentice", with the punditocracy, commentariat, and twitterati getting to feel good saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!"
The "moderators" are picadors. [bullfighters on horseback who prick the bull with a lance to weaken it and goad it.] TV likes advertisers, advertisers like ratings, and ratings like blood, not intelligent, substantive discussion.
Meanwhile, Pete has a future in the future. Klobuchar has a future, preferably as Vice Presidential candidate this year and then as the Presidential candidate in 2024. Bernie would be the perfect person to hold the non-existent position of The Conscience Of The Democratic Party. Biden, sadly, has let Iowa, New Hampshire, and the polls divert him from his winning strategy of positivity. Warren appears to be auditioning for a senior role in the Trump reelection campaign. Bloomberg is the only one who demonstrates that defeating Trump is what the election is about, that if you don't win, you lose, that if you do not defeat Trump and deal with the reality of Congress in 2021, you will get nowhere, not even one step on the road to all the noble, aspirational fantasies coming from other candidates.
As to being a billionaire: it takes billions to run for President. I rather have a President whose source of money is 100% transparent than one with a lot of dark money from unknown sources.
4
I have learned to abhor bullfighting. Last night Elizabeth Warren reminded me of a very skilled matador slashing a bull, for entertainment. This was much worse than Kamala Harris uttering, “I was that little girl,” back in June. “How many? How many?” she uttered, and the venom pierced the TV screen. Bloomberg resisted the charge. Be careful with wounded animals, wise folks repeat.
4
Bloomberg endorsed and held a fundraiser for Warren's 2012 senate rival Scott Brown (R-MA). Payback.
I am sick and tired of The Times and Paul Krugman telling us that the form of medical system that prevails in every other developed country on the planet is simply impossible for America to achieve.
Universal single-payer healthcare is what we need, what we want, and what we're willing to fight for. If The Times can't be bothered, then get out of the way.
We're sick of your defeatism.
34
The problem is not single payer, the problem is cost. Medicare for All is expected to cost $11.000 per year all included. In Italy (hardly a well run country) it is $2.500, also all included. What is needed is competition. Unfortunately the solution goes through the minutiae of regulations (very difficult to encapsulate in an electoral message), quite the opposite of the grandiose plans of Sanders and Warren.
@Alberto Absolutely wrong. A British medical journal just concluded that Medicare for all in America would save $650 billion a year and prevent 68,000 deaths annually.
The thing that works worst in healthcare is competition. Everywhere in the world.
Single payer works. Everywhere.
7
What you say about the Bloomberg Terminal is exactly right. (And think about this. Steve Jobs didn’t name it the Jobs Computer, just saying.)
What professional Bloomberg most reminds me of is that of the arms dealer. The man who sells you an AK-47 in Mogadishu tells you that he is just supplying a demand. He tells you that if he doesn’t do it, someone else will. In any event, he will tell you that war is war, and nothing can change human nature.
The Bloomberg Terminal never taught a child the violin. It never held the hand of a dying grandmother. It also never got us to Mars, or helped us finish the Superconducting Supercollider in Texas. All it did is suck the life out of Main Street while making Wall Street grow like a cancer.
Bloomberg is an arms dealer who created a smug, self satisfied race of vampires. Next to him, Trump is just a kitten.
9
Michael Bloomberg, attacked from all sides and a rusty at the debate process, did not do well for the first half of a chaotic, poorly moderated brawl in Nevada.
Michael Bloomberg is a very smart businessman who became a multi-billionaire by coming up with the technology to give Wall Street traders with his device an edge over those without the technology.
Paul Krugman is right that the Bloomberg innovation did nothing to make the American economy better or fairer. On the other hand, Bloomberg was not a con artist and committed no financial crimes.
Michael Bloomberg was a strong mayor of New York City, and he inherited a way of maintaining order and controlling street crime from his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, and from others like police commissioners, Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton. The idea was to reduce murders and other major felonies, by arresting or hassling small-time criminals and, above all, to discourage people from carrying guns outside their homes.
They all went too far, but it is highly doubtful that Michael Bloomberg was then or is now a racist. He started many helpful programs for people of color in New York, and has enjoyed the support of many black and non-white Hispanic leaders.
Michael Bloomberg can beat Donald Trump in spite of the smear campaign directed at the former mayor. Donald Trump, who courts white supremacists and neo-Nazis, is a vindictive, foolish man. He is a terrible president, and Democrats are throwing away the chance to beat him.
8
Suggestion for Bloomberg: Buy Fox News.
34
@Jordana. I love this idea!!
@Jordana It's not for sale.
I loved the debate. Gloves off. Warren knew she had to do something to reverse her recent decline at the polls. Same for all except Bernie, who is in the lead. And they all took the gloves off.
Democracy is messy. But it was not boring last night.
And I didn’t think Mike Bloomberg was as bad as all the pundits say.
As the great late Roger Craig, manager of the San Francisco Giants once said....” Hummm baby, this is gonna be fun”.
Everybody gotta vote! Please vote America.
501
@John B The boxing metaphor can be limiting. can be limiting at times. I prefer an archery contest, but the target is not the other competitors.
7
@John B
If boring is having a substantive discussion on policy, then I'm all for boring.
We're at the point we're in now due to those who seem to like this reality TV style and waiting breathlessly for the next zinger.
What I saw on that stage was my favorite candidate, Senator Warren, doing what she thought she had to do to feed the beast even though she didn't really believe it herself.
I hope that her lowering the bar (by her own standards) worked to get voters to refocus to see her as what she is...smart, knowledgeable, hard working, energetic and driven to make a better world for everyone.
As a middle aged person who sees the economic hardship all around, I will be forever grateful to Senator Sanders for his making inequality the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign. For doing that, I voted for him in the primary because I knew my vote, here, was not going to make the difference and that I would be able to vote for Clinton in the general.
I say all of that because now is not the time for Senator Sanders and it is my hope that he will step aside and let Senator Warren rise to the top. He has the ability to do that and he should.
55
@John B
I did not. It was like Armageddon. I thought it hurt the Democratic party. It may have helped Sens. Warren & Sanders, but it helped Donald trump far more.
Mike Bloomberg's chances may have vanished. But he was insulted so badly. And he may not give any money to help Democrats elected, while Republicans will have plenty of money to spend.
17
Haven't we been down this road before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993
Yes, Elizabeth Warren was competing with Sanders for voters but said the best sentence of the night "... being nice to some women..."
On the other hand, it probably will not matter because Bloomberg has enough funds to re-write the results of the debate via marketing. He will go straight for the numbers.
Warren and Bloomberg and, all the others wanted to be Obama. But Bloomberg is the one who has the Obama commercials Everywhere, All the Time. Will he go for regulating the financial sector? Journalists should be asking.
2
Thank you, Paul, once again, for pointing out how Bloomberg made his money: buy selling equipment to the destroyers of the universe. This financialization of our economy is making it worse and worse. Private equity must be stopped. Private equity is literally killing us - yes, killing us, and making us so much worse off. Bloomberg is part of that whole web which is killing us. And furthermore, he doesn't understand the relationships between private equity and the destruction to our economy.
This inability to understand that dysfunctional relationship will make Bloomberg a terrible president. He will be glib on that, just like he was glib in the debate when he said he "earned his money by working hard". What Bloomberg doesn't understand is that he doesn't "work hard" - a plumber works hard, an assembly line worker works hard, a secretary works hard - Bloomberg had a great idea for the financial destruction complex and that's how he made his billions. He will be completely out of touch with ordinary Americans.
Not that Trump is actually in touch with ordinary Americans, but he is the greatest liar in the world right now (I'll certainly give him that title of "greatest") and Bloomberg does not have that kind of negative charm to be able to lie and get away with it.
Thanks Paul, for pointing this out.
8
I don't care if it's Sanders or Warren. No one will do anything anyway because the Senate will remain republican. However, Warren and Sanders will try, which is way more than moderates will do. Moderates will look at every issue as a republican does. They will ask, "how can we make this good for corporations"?
It's not important who wins because the American people are brainwashed and weak and will never raise their eyes to their corporate overlords. If they do, they will be living in the streets and they know it. Of course, a few more years of Trump and they might be anyway.
I am seriously disappointed in the American people, who are weak and ignorant. The media and the politicians have a refrain, and that is, "the American people are hard working, smart, and deserve better". I think that is simple propaganda they use because they have something to sell. And the people buy it hook line and sinker. But they live in a country where they can elect the politicians, yet their lives get worse. Whose fault is that except the people who select the leaders?
Mr. Krugman, you say that medicare for all cannot pass. That does not say whether it should or not. Would medicare for all be better for the people? I think so. Just because we know our evil leaders won't do something doesn't mean we should not even consider that thing.
We should be very concerned with climate change and demand action. It won't happen because our leaders are evil, but it is the right thing to do.
7
Dems should be talking about their extraordinarily weak base and anemic slate of POTUS candidates. There are no pragmatic choices. America loses because of this.
1
2nd try
Krugman never asks why financial we had "financialization of the U.S. economy." The answer is simple. It is one word:
Inequality.
What's a guy or gal who already has so many houses he can't remember how many & an elevator for his horse gonna spend his money on? The answer is he is going to use it to speculate. There is a correlation between inequality & financial speculation.
Just think about the Roaring 20's. It had high inequality & vast amounts of financial speculation. Just think about the Great Prosperity of post WWII. It had low inequality and financial speculation was modest. Just think about the period from the mid 1990's to today--high inequality and high financial speculation.
Now we can ask the question why did we have high inequality sometimes and not others. Well, just look at the policies of the federal gov.
During the period of high inequality we had low taxes on the Rich, and federal spending was not large enough to prevent money from leaving the private sector. During the 20's, we actually had federal surpluses which sucked money from the privare sector to the federal gov. During post WWII, the gov spent so much the debt increased 75%. From 1996 to 2008, the trade deficit which took money out of our economy was larger than the federal deficit which put money in. It is hard to believe all this is a series of coincidences.
Now I ask you good reader, who among the candidates realizes that the Rich and their corporations are wrecking our economy?
7
@Len Charlap :"Just think about the Great Prosperity of post WWII. It had low inequality and financial speculation was modest."
We also had a manufacturing base in the US that provided well paying jobs for semi-skilled labor. In the 1950s over 90% of autos sold in the US were assembled here with union labor. At present about 45% of autos sold here are assembled here. A large portion of which are non-union. The non-union shops includes VW, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Tesla in progressive California.
Other sectors providing durable goods have less manufacturing presence in the US.
How say you in terms of autos? Do you, your family, friends drive a vehicle assembled in the US by union labor? Although I'm not sure how you feel about unions. Maybe you don't care for them in which case I could see purchasing non-union goods.
Your great prosperity disappeared with the manufacturing base - automation notwithstanding. And just like manufacturing, that prosperity is gone. I guess we'll have WPA 2.0 to look forward to. Enjoy.
1
@Jp - So why did manufacturing and unions disappear? Because the Rich could see better ways to leech money from the system than manufacturing and, of course, they hated unions.
If we got the Rich under control, we could use automation to bring back prosperity withe people working less and living happier lives longer.
@Len Charlap :"So why did manufacturing and unions disappear? "
We purchase more imports. We purchase durable goods from non-union factories. We off-shored manufacturing. And yes, some automation.
The first two are due to the actions of consumers. That's all of us.
But it's more soothing to think of the loss of manufacturing as due to some cold heartless investor.
These are actions generally favored by the NYT's lead economist OP-ED writer - maybe a little crack in the armor in today's piece.
Paul Krugman's by now only terse mention of Sanders, the Democratic frontrunner poised to sweep Super Tuesday, is amusing, especially after last week’s canard: “Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Socialist. But he plays one on TV. That’s a problem”). Krugman’s leaden prose reminds me of the stolid face of Mike Bloomberg at the Nevada debate last night. The rancor Krugman showed towards Senator Sanders in 2016 continues to darken his reasoning, even though Krugman presents himself as the oracle of the obvious. He clairvoyantly annunciates no chance of enactment for "so-called Medicare for all" (he can't even write the words without belittling the concept) and joins the chorus of the cable news oracles who chant in unison "No, we can't." And this while giving a New York pass to the Bloomberg Terminal for facilitating the financialization of the U.S. economy, amassing billions for its creator, and allowing him to spend ungodly sums on buying the presidential election, thus exercising further control over that financialized economy in the feedback loop only Sanders, of all the candidates, resolutely condemns. What a mess this political science of Paul Krugman!
3
Typical Bernie Bro attack when their candidate isn’t praised or bowed to....
It sounds as though the general public likes brawls and free for alls on stage and is less interested in calmly figuring out where to go and how to achieve a goal. To me the debate was only a brawl on stage. It says nothing about who will go on to lead the Democrats.Bloomberg was at least uninterested in joining the brawl, he was prepared to discuss something but the others were too busy taking cheap shots at each other. A scrappy, punching president will be of no use to anyone. I was thououghly disgusted with the so called debate this time and my opinion of Bloomberg rose somewhat higher.
2
Disheartening. Obama campaigned on ideas to lift up all Americans. His intellect, calm & vision were compelling yet outlined the possible.
To me, Sanders & Warren are snake oil promoters. Most of Sanders' positions have no chance of going anywhere- the man has so little legislative ability that he couldn't vote or amend a trade deal with Canada and suggested Obama & Biden voted for a bill promoting slavery. He thought Hillary should not win though she had the most delegates going into the convention but believes he should win if he has the most votes- A paragon of virtue & fairness.
Warren was absolutely wonderful in her work on the Consumer Protection Bureau. Now we believe she would be a good president because she attacks harder and lower than others and rallies a crowd to hate the enemy, the accursed billionaire– the one who had a lot to do with putting Pelosi in power and has been attacking Trump & doing it well. Warren went lowest & hardest, so she won the debate. That should be the Republican metric.
The snake oil is the wealth tax that Warren knows is not constitutional & would not pass in the Supreme Court but lets her promise the moon.
So we are poised to take all pressure off of Trump. His voters will see him only as the protector of American capitalism vs. the Socialist who will cancel their insurance. True Believer Nader gave us W. Sanders will give us Trump. And Bloomberg is name called the egomaniac.
3
@JT - John Tucker
Sure, a living wage for a working family is snake oil.
Save us from the nay-sayers, they're the lickspittles of this world. After dragging us down they hop on board when we succeed, telling everyone they were behind us all the way.
@JT - John Tucker :
...and this is why I'm voting for Biden!
1
If people can make money by moving papers from pile to another, this is capitalism at work. How dare anyone criticize it?
1
Paul. How does crow taste? This article is so sedate i almost don’t recognize the author. Pragmatism rules today. Populism rules. The pendulum always swings both ways. Progressivism is dead, at least for 20 years. Long live progressives.
I guess people think this was the big moment like Harris's "I was that little girl" moment that was going to propel her to the presidency. Well, if you have not integrity, a zinger at a debate doesn't matter much.
So Bloomberg isn't a financial war criminal, but an arms dealer who got rich selling to the war criminals. Evocative perspective.
I earnestly hope Warren sticks to her original impulse of anti-financial corruption. She single-handedly saved more working families than any other person in the Obama administration. Maybe including Obama. Political hobbyists like myself can get jaded about a billion dollars - until you think about how many working families it can save.
13
I like Pete. Best candidate on that stage by far.
1
You must be joking. That guy is a total fake job. Makes Alfred E. Neumann, Mad look like a genius :-)
Completely agree.
Liz thought Bernie would be old and weak and that she could be Bernie "light" and somehow appease everybody. Wrong!
But she survived in Iowa (thanks, Joe) and her poor performance in NH got less coverage because of Joe's complete collapse and attempt to "escape" the state on Primary Day. Then she got Bloom on stage last night--right next to her, no less--and she seized the day (night?). Amy, meanwhile, was defensive and just OK.
The best part for Liz is that she's approaching the point in the calendar where she has some natural advantages. She has huge name recognition in CA and Texas and more minority support than Pete and Amy. She could easily end up as the last woman on stage, with two billionaires and an old white man---natural foils for her. And she needs a foil. Could be much worse.
3
Why all of sudden should we get excited about a Wall Street billionaire?
A decade ago we were poised to hang the lot of them by their “coin purses”...
3
Bloomberg is even wonkier than Warren. M4A aside, their platform or plans are similar - Bloomberg 2020 is well left of Clinton or Obama. Her attacks on him were cheap shots and she knows it.
2